# Atheists want multiple universes and extra-terrestrial civilizations to exist because they think it will hurt Christianity



## Blackrook

But belief in these theories are more wishful thinking than reality.

The concept that there are an infinite number of parallel universes is poppycock. Even if true, there will never be a way to prove it.

If extra-terrestrial civilizations existed, we'd know it by now. We've been listening for their radio signals for decades and in all that time we've heard squat.

The reality is that atheist scientists have pushed belief in these notions because they hate Christianity and want to undermine people's faith in religion.


----------



## fncceo

They are in for a big surprise...  when they meet, The Space Pope!


----------



## Quasar44

Blackrook said:


> But belief in these theories are more wishful thinking than reality.
> 
> The concept that there are an infinite number of parallel universes is poppycock. Even if true, there will never be a way to prove it.
> 
> If extra-terrestrial civilizations existed, we'd know it by now. We've been listening for their radio signals for decades and in all that time we've heard squat.
> 
> The reality is that atheist scientists have pushed belief in these notions because they hate Christianity and want to undermine people's faith in religion.


You do realize there is very very strong math and quantum physics behind these theories !!
 Are they true in a math sense - yes 
Are they true in reality - I have no idea


----------



## Blackrook

If you can't prove it then it's really a form of lying to teach in the schools and convince innocent little children it's true.


----------



## Blackrook

Here's what I think.

One planet in the universe has intelligent life: Earth.

One form of intelligent life exists in the universe: humans.

One universe exists, there are no others: our universe.

Prove me wrong.


----------



## fncceo

Blackrook said:


> We've been listening for their radio signals for decades and in all that time we've heard squat.



Radio has gone out of fashion in the more civilized galaxies.  





They're all about Social Media now.


----------



## cnm

Nah, Thor is the target of atheists' ire, not Jehovah.


----------



## the other mike

Blackrook said:


> But belief in these theories are more wishful thinking than reality.
> 
> The concept that there are an infinite number of parallel universes is poppycock. Even if true, there will never be a way to prove it.
> 
> If extra-terrestrial civilizations existed, we'd know it by now. We've been listening for their radio signals for decades and in all that time we've heard squat.
> 
> The reality is that atheist scientists have pushed belief in these notions because they hate Christianity and want to undermine people's faith in religion.


What are you babbling about ?

Of course there is life on other planets in this galaxy and others.
Do some shrooms or something . Open your window .

Jesus fucking Christ.


----------



## GLASNOST

Blackrook said:


> But belief in these theories are more wishful thinking than reality.
> 
> The concept that there are an infinite number of parallel universes is poppycock. Even if true, there will never be a way to prove it.
> 
> If extra-terrestrial civilizations existed, we'd know it by now. We've been listening for their radio signals for decades and in all that time we've heard squat.
> 
> The reality is that atheist scientists have pushed belief in these notions because they hate Christianity and want to undermine people's faith in religion.


I don't support atheism but your short-sightedness & prejudice surprises me.


----------



## GLASNOST

Angelo said:


> Blackrook said:
> 
> 
> 
> But belief in these theories are more wishful thinking than reality.
> 
> The concept that there are an infinite number of parallel universes is poppycock. Even if true, there will never be a way to prove it.
> 
> If extra-terrestrial civilizations existed, we'd know it by now. We've been listening for their radio signals for decades and in all that time we've heard squat.
> 
> The reality is that atheist scientists have pushed belief in these notions because they hate Christianity and want to undermine people's faith in religion.
> 
> 
> 
> What are you babbling about ?
Click to expand...

That's what I'd like to know.


----------



## the other mike

GLASNOST said:


> Angelo said:
> 
> 
> 
> What are you babbling about ?
> 
> 
> 
> That's what I'd like to know.
Click to expand...

I know him from another news board but he doesn't remember me.


----------



## GLASNOST

Why are people so stupid? Atheism has nothing to do with science. Read my lips .... Science does not disprove the existence of God but *Science most definitely DISPROVES THE BIBLE & the KORAN. *Is that really so difficult to understand?


----------



## GLASNOST

Angelo said:


> GLASNOST said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Angelo said:
> 
> 
> 
> What are you babbling about ?
> 
> 
> 
> That's what I'd like to know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I know him from another news board but he doesn't remember me.
Click to expand...

Who? God?


----------



## GLASNOST

fncceo said:


> They are in for a big surprise...  when they meet, The Space Pope!
> 
> View attachment 412448


On the planet Tramtária?


----------



## Wyatt earp

Blackrook said:


> But belief in these theories are more wishful thinking than reality.
> 
> The concept that there are an infinite number of parallel universes is poppycock. Even if true, there will never be a way to prove it.
> 
> If extra-terrestrial civilizations existed, we'd know it by now. We've been listening for their radio signals for decades and in all that time we've heard squat.
> 
> The reality is that atheist scientists have pushed belief in these notions because they hate Christianity and want to undermine people's faith in religion.


Black rock, you always have the best absolutely nuts thread titles on the internet..


Lol

Thanks for another laugh..


----------



## toobfreak

Blackrook said:


> The concept that there are an infinite number of parallel universes is poppycock. Even if true, there will never be a way to prove it.


That might be true.  By definition, if something truly is in a totally different universe, that would preclude any possibility of seeing it in another, but the actual idea of innumerable or infinite universes is not a new idea-- --  it actually goes as far back as 5,000 years ago to the original Hindu Vedic system where according to their story, innumerable universes emanated from the navel of MahaVishnu while resting on the Causal Ocean in a dream state dreaming up all of the universes.  Vishnu was the plenary portion of God responsible for creation.





Related to modern physics, it is unclear whether these universes would be the same as what we think of today or if each of their universes would be what we call a galaxy now.  But they also created the idea of the atom.



> If extra-terrestrial civilizations existed, we'd know it by now.


That's harder to say.  We can't be sure they would be communicating with or listening for radio waves or something altogether different, and the age of the universe is so old and the lifetime of technical civilizations so uncertain, that we just don't know how many others if any would reach the same level of communication sophistication as us or greater within reach of each other AT THE SAME TIME.


----------



## GLASNOST

toobfreak said:


> .... the actual idea of innumerable or infinite universes is not a new idea-- --  it actually goes as far back as 5,000 years ago to the original Hindu Vedic system where according to their story, innumerable universes emanated from the navel of MahaVishnu while resting on the Causal Ocean in a dream state dreaming up all of the universes.  Vishnu was the plenary portion of God responsible for creation.
> 
> View attachment 412480


 
So, rather than *receive nourishment* through his navel Vishnu *sends forth nourishment *from his navel. That probably explains why he looks exceptionally anaemic.


----------



## fncceo

GLASNOST said:


> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> .... the actual idea of innumerable or infinite universes is not a new idea-- --  it actually goes as far back as 5,000 years ago to the original Hindu Vedic system where according to their story, innumerable universes emanated from the navel of MahaVishnu while resting on the Causal Ocean in a dream state dreaming up all of the universes.  Vishnu was the plenary portion of God responsible for creation.
> 
> View attachment 412480
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, rather than *receive nourishment* through his navel Vishnu *sends forth nourishment *from his navel. That probably explains why he looks exceptionally anaemic.
Click to expand...


He's cyanotic, not anaemic.


----------



## jackflash

Blackrook said:


> But belief in these theories are more wishful thinking than reality.
> 
> The concept that there are an infinite number of parallel universes is poppycock. Even if true, there will never be a way to prove it.
> 
> If extra-terrestrial civilizations existed, we'd know it by now. We've been listening for their radio signals for decades and in all that time we've heard squat.
> 
> The reality is that atheist scientists have pushed belief in these notions because they hate Christianity and want to undermine people's faith in religion.


Religion = belief. Belief = acceptance. Acceptance = evolution. Evolution = acceptance. Acceptance = belief. Belief = religion.  

There are no atheists as you can see EVERYONE has a religion ONE WAY OR THE OTHER. I believe it was Dr. Stephen Hawking that said "Sometimes one has to use reverse engineering to verify the answer".


----------



## alang1216

Blackrook said:


> But belief in these theories are more wishful thinking than reality.
> 
> The concept that there are an infinite number of parallel universes is poppycock. Even if true, there will never be a way to prove it.
> 
> If extra-terrestrial civilizations existed, we'd know it by now. We've been listening for their radio signals for decades and in all that time we've heard squat.
> 
> The reality is that atheist scientists have pushed belief in these notions because they hate Christianity and want to undermine people's faith in religion.


So why did God create billions of galaxies with billions of stars?  Most of those stars in distant galaxies we'll never even see so they were probably not made for us.  Who then?


----------



## Grumblenuts

To a Great Designer what purpose could possibly be served by having humans possess failing eyesight? Heart disease? Hearing loss? Why have us fall apart as we grow older?


----------



## GLASNOST

fncceo said:


> GLASNOST said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> .... the actual idea of innumerable or infinite universes is not a new idea-- --  it actually goes as far back as 5,000 years ago to the original Hindu Vedic system where according to their story, innumerable universes emanated from the navel of MahaVishnu while resting on the Causal Ocean in a dream state dreaming up all of the universes.  Vishnu was the plenary portion of God responsible for creation.
> 
> View attachment 412480
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, rather than *receive nourishment* through his navel Vishnu *sends forth nourishment *from his navel. That probably explains why he looks exceptionally anaemic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He's cyanotic, not anaemic.
Click to expand...

I learned something new today.


----------



## GLASNOST

jackflash said:


> Religion = belief. Belief = acceptance. Acceptance = evolution. Evolution = acceptance. Acceptance = belief. Belief = religion.
> 
> There are no atheists as you can see *EVERYONE has a religion ONE WAY OR THE OTHER.* I believe it was Dr. Stephen Hawking that said "Sometimes one has to use reverse engineering to verify the answer".


I disagree. You say "Belief = religion". OK, but .....

A religious person *believes* in God (for example). *"Belief = religion"*
An Atheist *believes* there is no God.* "Belief = religion"*
An agnostic *doesn't believe* in anything. *No belief, no religion.*


----------



## danielpalos

Blackrook said:


> But belief in these theories are more wishful thinking than reality.
> 
> The concept that there are an infinite number of parallel universes is poppycock. Even if true, there will never be a way to prove it.
> 
> If extra-terrestrial civilizations existed, we'd know it by now. We've been listening for their radio signals for decades and in all that time we've heard squat.
> 
> The reality is that atheist scientists have pushed belief in these notions because they hate Christianity and want to undermine people's faith in religion.



There is at least one intelligent civilization per galaxy.  The Hubble deep field study shows tens of thousands galaxies in the "emptiest part of perceived space. 

If theists wanted to prove God exists we would only need Ten simple Commandments not the Expense of Government.


----------



## ReinyDays

GLASNOST said:


> An agnostic *doesn't believe* in anything. *No belief, no religion.*



An agnostic *doesn't care* one way or the other ... such certainly believes addition is commutative ... don't we all ...

... and please change your sig line ... spent the past five minutes swatting my computer screen ...


----------



## Grumblenuts

GLASNOST said:


> jackflash said:
> 
> 
> 
> Religion = belief. Belief = acceptance. Acceptance = evolution. Evolution = acceptance. Acceptance = belief. Belief = religion.
> 
> There are no atheists as you can see *EVERYONE has a religion ONE WAY OR THE OTHER.* I believe it was Dr. Stephen Hawking that said "Sometimes one has to use reverse engineering to verify the answer".
> 
> 
> 
> I disagree. You say "Belief = religion". OK, but .....
> 
> A religious person *believes* in God (for example). *"Belief = religion"*
> An Atheist *believes* there is no God.* "Belief = religion"*
> An agnostic *doesn't believe* in anything. *No belief, no religion.*
Click to expand...

Sigh. 

Per Google:
atheist - "a person who disbelieves *or lacks belief* in the existence of God or gods."
agnostic -  "a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; *a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief* in God."

Per logic:
An agnostic is simply an atheist lacking the balls to admit they're an atheist.


----------



## Soupnazi630

Blackrook said:


> But belief in these theories are more wishful thinking than reality.
> 
> The concept that there are an infinite number of parallel universes is poppycock. Even if true, there will never be a way to prove it.
> 
> If extra-terrestrial civilizations existed, we'd know it by now. We've been listening for their radio signals for decades and in all that time we've heard squat.
> 
> The reality is that atheist scientists have pushed belief in these notions because they hate Christianity and want to undermine people's faith in religion.


does 
The hypothesis of a multi verse is valid. It is true that it may never be proven but that does not refute it.

Extra terretrials are very nearly a foregone conclusion. It is a near certianty that they exist. Just because we have been listening for decades is irrelevant. Radio signlas travel at the speed of light but the universe or for that matter the local area of the galaxy is so large that our own signals have only barely reached a few other star systems. For all we know an intelligent extraterrestrial species could have begun broadcasting centuries ago but be thousands of light years away which would mean we have many more thousands of years before their signals can reach us. If one is only 100 light years away and began trasmitting radio signals 50 years ago we wont be able to know it for another fifty years.

For that matter extraterrestrials does not necessarily mean INTELLIGENT extraterrestrials. It is a high probability that something alive is swimming on worlds near by such as europa. It may only be a microbe but the environment is ripe for it.

Not all scientists are atheist and almost none of them hate christianity. They almost all agree in the probability of life on other worlds because is IS an overwhelming probability.


----------



## ReinyDays

Soupnazi630 said:


> does
> The hypothesis of a multi verse is valid. It is true that it may never be proven but that does not refute it.
> 
> Extra terretrials are very nearly a foregone conclusion. It is a near certianty that they exist. Just because we have been listening for decades is irrelevant. Radio signlas travel at the speed of light but the universe or for that matter the local area of the galaxy is so large that our own signals have only barely reached a few other star systems. For all we know an intelligent extraterrestrial species could have begun broadcasting centuries ago but be thousands of light years away which would mean we have many more thousands of years before their signals can reach us. If one is only 100 light years away and began trasmitting radio signals 50 years ago we wont be able to know it for another fifty years.
> 
> For that matter extraterrestrials does not necessarily mean INTELLIGENT extraterrestrials. It is a high probability that something alive is swimming on worlds near by such as europa. It may only be a microbe but the environment is ripe for it.
> 
> Not all scientists are atheist and almost none of them hate christianity. They almost all agree in the probability of life on other worlds because is IS an overwhelming probability.



I disagree ... many scientists are working against Blackrook's belief system ... as should many Christians ... Muslims, Hindus, Taoists, Jews, little green people from Titan, squirrels and ameba all stand in unity against Blackrook's belief system ... goes through the Bible and just picks what he wants to believe in and ignores the rest ...

I was reading a UFOlogists blog a few months ago ... discussing what we need to do to find ET ... the blogger reversed that, what would ET need to do to find us? ... he built the argument that Earth would stand out like a sore thumb to anyone within 100,000,000 light years ... just a glance at the spectrum is proof beyond _any_ doubt there's advanced life here ...

So ... where are all the tourists? ...


----------



## Soupnazi630

ReinyDays said:


> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> does
> The hypothesis of a multi verse is valid. It is true that it may never be proven but that does not refute it.
> 
> Extra terretrials are very nearly a foregone conclusion. It is a near certianty that they exist. Just because we have been listening for decades is irrelevant. Radio signlas travel at the speed of light but the universe or for that matter the local area of the galaxy is so large that our own signals have only barely reached a few other star systems. For all we know an intelligent extraterrestrial species could have begun broadcasting centuries ago but be thousands of light years away which would mean we have many more thousands of years before their signals can reach us. If one is only 100 light years away and began trasmitting radio signals 50 years ago we wont be able to know it for another fifty years.
> 
> For that matter extraterrestrials does not necessarily mean INTELLIGENT extraterrestrials. It is a high probability that something alive is swimming on worlds near by such as europa. It may only be a microbe but the environment is ripe for it.
> 
> Not all scientists are atheist and almost none of them hate christianity. They almost all agree in the probability of life on other worlds because is IS an overwhelming probability.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I disagree ... many scientists are working against Blackrook's belief system ... as should many Christians ... Muslims, Hindus, Taoists, Jews, little green people from Titan, squirrels and ameba all stand in unity against Blackrook's belief system ... goes through the Bible and just picks what he wants to believe in and ignores the rest ...
> 
> I was reading a UFOlogists blog a few months ago ... discussing what we need to do to find ET ... the blogger reversed that, what would ET need to do to find us? ... he built the argument that Earth would stand out like a sore thumb to anyone within 100,000,000 light years ... just a glance at the spectrum is proof beyond _any_ doubt there's advanced life here ...
> 
> So ... where are all the tourists? ...
Click to expand...

No one is working against his belief system. No one even knows about it. Quite the contrary he is building a belief system designed to go against anything he does not like.

We would be very obscure and unllikely to be noticed by any other civilization. We are not that important and so far have left little or no sign we are here to a distant observor.


----------



## GLASNOST

GLASNOST said:


> An agnostic *doesn't believe* in anything. *No belief, no religion.*





ReinyDays said:


> An agnostic *doesn't care* one way or the other ...



Not true. I am an Agnostic myself and I *do care* ..... in facts .... or at least logic, but superstition and idiocy bore me and is a waste of the short time I have left on this earth.



ReinyDays said:


> ... and please change your sig line ... spent the past five minutes swatting my computer screen ...


LOL! Sorry. Several have complained about it but how else will I get attention? But someone here likes it because I see they've copied it and are using it as their sig on another discussion forum.


----------



## james bond

Quasar44 said:


> You do realize there is very very strong math and quantum physics behind these theories !!
> Are they true in a math sense - yes
> Are they true in reality - I have no idea



It's just really weak arguments from the atheists.

Quantum physics - It's just that the electron isn't known where it is until observed.  The electron is there.
Math sense - infinite sets, e.g. set of counting nos
Reality - We know the creator exists and is the best theory.  Both Christianity and ID support it.


----------



## GLASNOST

Grumblenuts said:


> GLASNOST said:
> 
> 
> 
> ..... "Belief = religion". OK, but .....
> A religious person *believes* in God (for example). *"Belief = religion"*
> An Atheist *believes* there is no God.* "Belief = religion"*
> An agnostic *doesn't believe* in anything. *No belief, no religion.*
> 
> 
> 
> Sigh.
> Per Google:
> atheist - "a person who disbelieves *or lacks belief* in the existence of God or gods."
> agnostic -  "a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; *a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief* in God."
> Per logic:
> An agnostic is simply an atheist lacking the balls to admit they're an atheist.
Click to expand...

I'll see your "sigh" and raise you five. 

1). You have quoted a passage that you do not understand and ... 
2). You quoted another one that is meant to be a joke but you have no sense of humour.


----------



## ReinyDays

Soupnazi630 said:


> We would be very obscure and unllikely to be noticed by any other civilization. We are not that important and so far have left little or no sign we are here to a distant observor.



It's the O2 signature in our atmosphere ... very distinct ... we know of no other reason for this other than life ... and we've had that distinct signature for 2.2 billion years ...


----------



## james bond

Soupnazi630 said:


> The hypothesis of a multi verse is valid. It is true that it may never be proven but that does not refute it.



No one has to refute anything.  It's up to the claimer to show his claim.



Soupnazi630 said:


> xtra terretrials are very nearly a foregone conclusion. It is a near certianty that they exist. Just because we have been listening for decades is irrelevant. Radio signlas travel at the speed of light but the universe or for that matter the local area of the galaxy is so large that our own signals have only barely reached a few other star systems. For all we know an intelligent extraterrestrial species could have begun broadcasting centuries ago but be thousands of light years away which would mean we have many more thousands of years before their signals can reach us. If one is only 100 light years away and began trasmitting radio signals 50 years ago we wont be able to know it for another fifty years.



These are claims and nothing backs it up.  Instead, we found scientific theories that show aliens didn't happen.



Soupnazi630 said:


> For that matter extraterrestrials does not necessarily mean INTELLIGENT extraterrestrials. It is a high probability that something alive is swimming on worlds near by such as europa. It may only be a microbe but the environment is ripe for it.
> 
> Not all scientists are atheist and almost none of them hate christianity. They almost all agree in the probability of life on other worlds because is IS an overwhelming probability.



This means abiogenesis happens and there have been no evidence of that happening.  The reality is there has been no abiogenesis in our solar system unless there are microbial life below the surface of Mars or on Europa moon.


----------



## ReinyDays

GLASNOST said:


> Not true. I am an Agnostic myself and I *do care* ..... in facts .... or at least logic, but superstition and idiocy bore me and is a waste of the short time I have left on this earth.



And of the communicative property of addition? ... this must be believed, and is the logical beginnings of all mathemagical thought ... among several other things that must be believed ... if you don't beileve these axioms, how do you balance your books? ...



GLASNOST said:


> ReinyDays said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... and please change your sig line ... spent the past five minutes swatting my computer screen ...
> 
> 
> 
> LOL! Sorry. Several have complained about it but how else will I get attention?
Click to expand...


Fine then ... I'll stop flea treating my cat ...


----------



## Soupnazi630

james bond said:


> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The hypothesis of a multi verse is valid. It is true that it may never be proven but that does not refute it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No one has to refute anything.  It's up to the claimer to show his claim.
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> xtra terretrials are very nearly a foregone conclusion. It is a near certianty that they exist. Just because we have been listening for decades is irrelevant. Radio signlas travel at the speed of light but the universe or for that matter the local area of the galaxy is so large that our own signals have only barely reached a few other star systems. For all we know an intelligent extraterrestrial species could have begun broadcasting centuries ago but be thousands of light years away which would mean we have many more thousands of years before their signals can reach us. If one is only 100 light years away and began trasmitting radio signals 50 years ago we wont be able to know it for another fifty years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> These are claims and nothing backs it up.  Instead, we found scientific theories that show aliens didn't happen.
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> For that matter extraterrestrials does not necessarily mean INTELLIGENT extraterrestrials. It is a high probability that something alive is swimming on worlds near by such as europa. It may only be a microbe but the environment is ripe for it.
> 
> Not all scientists are atheist and almost none of them hate christianity. They almost all agree in the probability of life on other worlds because is IS an overwhelming probability.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This means abiogenesis happens and there have been no evidence of that happening.  The reality is there has been no abiogenesis in our solar system unless there are microbial life below the surface of Mars or on Europa moon.
Click to expand...

That is true but they are still valid theories.

There are no theories that aliens did not happen.

The fact that we are here proves abiogenesis happens


----------



## Soupnazi630

ReinyDays said:


> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> We would be very obscure and unllikely to be noticed by any other civilization. We are not that important and so far have left little or no sign we are here to a distant observor.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's the O2 signature in our atmosphere ... very distinct ... we know of no other reason for this other than life ... and we've had that distinct signature for 2.2 billion years ...
Click to expand...


It does not exclusively indicate life and even if it did only plant life.

No reason to assume anyone out there is curious about it.


----------



## GLASNOST

ReinyDays said:


> GLASNOST said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not true. I am an Agnostic myself and I *do care* ..... in facts .... or at least logic, but superstition and idiocy bore me and is a waste of the short time I have left on this earth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And of the communicative property of addition? ... this must be believed, and is the logical beginnings of all mathemagical thought ... among several other things that must be believed ... if you don't beileve these axioms, how do you balance your books? ...
> 
> 
> 
> GLASNOST said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ReinyDays said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... and please change your sig line ... spent the past five minutes swatting my computer screen ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL! Sorry. Several have complained about it but how else will I get attention?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fine then ... I'll stop flea treating my cat ...
Click to expand...

I was pretty good in algebra and I know there have to be enough "knowns" in the equation in order to calculate the unknown(s). There is an insufficient number of knowns in order to make a single logical conviction on *the meaning of life*. We humans rely upon our own concoction of communal living (that we call "morals") but we cannot even agree on what those are ... or should be. Saying ridiculous things such as,* "If God wanted us to *** he would have given us a **"* is just as silly as saying* "If the moon were square we wouldn't eat cheese".*


----------



## ReinyDays

Soupnazi630 said:


> ReinyDays said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's the O2 signature in our atmosphere ... very distinct ... we know of no other reason for this other than life ... and we've had that distinct signature for 2.2 billion years ...
> 
> 
> 
> It does not exclusively indicate life and even if it did only plant life.
> No reason to assume anyone out there is curious about it.
Click to expand...


There is certainly enough oxygen in the universe, but there's plenty of carbon as well ... the question is under what circumstances would these two elements not bond to each other? ... they're a perfect match ... keep in mind we've detected O2 in the universe only in trivial amounts ... the molecule readily splits up in the presence of reduced carbon ...

Plants native to another planet is all but proof positive of evolution ... bacteria as well ... 

I agree that it may be that only humans are curious enough to look out into the heavens ... the claim is that IF they're looking, they'd find us in a big hurry ... blatant and obvious, at least according to UFOlogists ... I'll leave you to judge their rigidity for yourself ...


----------



## ReinyDays

GLASNOST said:


> I was pretty good in algebra and I know there have to be enough "knowns" in the equation in order to calculate the unknown(s). There is an insufficient number of knowns in order to make a single logical conviction on *the meaning of life*. We humans rely upon our own concoction of communal living (that we call "morals") but we cannot even agree on what those are ... or should be. Saying ridiculous things such as,* "If God wanted us to *** he would have given us a **"* is just as silly as saying* "If the moon were square we wouldn't eat cheese".*



Is this your belief? ... Christians believe the only factor in the meaning of life is love ... "God is Love" ... everything else is just dross and chaff that the wind blowth away ...


----------



## GLASNOST

GLASNOST said:


> I was pretty good in algebra and I know there have to be enough "knowns" in the equation in order to calculate the unknown(s). There is an insufficient number of knowns in order to make a single logical conviction on *the meaning of life*. We humans rely upon our own concoction of communal living (that we call "morals") but we cannot even agree on what those are ... or should be. Saying ridiculous things such as,* "If God wanted us to *** he would have given us a **"* is just as silly as saying* "If the moon were square we wouldn't eat cheese".*





ReinyDays said:


> Is this your belief? ...


What a strange question. 


ReinyDays said:


> Christians believe the only factor in the meaning of life is love ... "God is Love" ... everything else is just dross and chaff that the wind blowth away ...


Now I know you're joking.


----------



## ReinyDays

GLASNOST said:


> ReinyDays said:
> 
> 
> 
> Christians believe the only factor in the meaning of life is love ... "God is Love" ... everything else is just dross and chaff that the wind blowth away ...
> 
> 
> 
> Now I know you're joking.
Click to expand...


You've already stated you're not a Christian ... if you think Christianity is a joke, then you're an atheist ... against monotheism ... just pointing out things you do believe in whether you admit it or not ... much in science must be believed _trusting_ these matters can be explained ... in religion, no explanation can be expected ...


----------



## Grumblenuts

GLASNOST said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GLASNOST said:
> 
> 
> 
> ..... "Belief = religion". OK, but .....
> A religious person *believes* in God (for example). *"Belief = religion"*
> An Atheist *believes* there is no God.* "Belief = religion"*
> An agnostic *doesn't believe* in anything. *No belief, no religion.*
> 
> 
> 
> Sigh.
> Per Google:
> atheist - "a person who disbelieves *or lacks belief* in the existence of God or gods."
> agnostic -  "a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; *a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief* in God."
> Per logic:
> An agnostic is simply an atheist lacking the balls to admit they're an atheist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'll see your "sigh" and raise you five.
> 
> 1). You have quoted a passage that you do not understand and ...
> 2). You quoted another one that is meant to be a joke but you have no sense of humour.
Click to expand...

I love you too, dear.


----------



## itfitzme

Blackrook said:


> But belief in these theories are more wishful thinking than reality.
> 
> The concept that there are an infinite number of parallel universes is poppycock. Even if true, there will never be a way to prove it.
> 
> If extra-terrestrial civilizations existed, we'd know it by now. We've been listening for their radio signals for decades and in all that time we've heard squat.
> 
> The reality is that atheist scientists have pushed belief in these notions because they hate Christianity and want to undermine people's faith in religion.



So, let me see if I understand this.  The Atheist Scientists are conspiring to force the idea of parallel universes and extra-terrestrial life in an effort to undermine Christianity.  (because they just hate Christians.  No particular reason, just cuz they hate them.  )


----------



## esalla

Blackrook said:


> But belief in these theories are more wishful thinking than reality.
> 
> The concept that there are an infinite number of parallel universes is poppycock. Even if true, there will never be a way to prove it.
> 
> If extra-terrestrial civilizations existed, we'd know it by now. We've been listening for their radio signals for decades and in all that time we've heard squat.
> 
> The reality is that atheist scientists have pushed belief in these notions because they hate Christianity and want to undermine people's faith in religion.


Atheist do not want ET because God was clearly not from Earth

So rethink your argument


----------



## danielpalos

james bond said:


> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The hypothesis of a multi verse is valid. It is true that it may never be proven but that does not refute it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No one has to refute anything.  It's up to the claimer to show his claim.
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> xtra terretrials are very nearly a foregone conclusion. It is a near certianty that they exist. Just because we have been listening for decades is irrelevant. Radio signlas travel at the speed of light but the universe or for that matter the local area of the galaxy is so large that our own signals have only barely reached a few other star systems. For all we know an intelligent extraterrestrial species could have begun broadcasting centuries ago but be thousands of light years away which would mean we have many more thousands of years before their signals can reach us. If one is only 100 light years away and began trasmitting radio signals 50 years ago we wont be able to know it for another fifty years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> These are claims and nothing backs it up.  Instead, we found scientific theories that show aliens didn't happen.
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> For that matter extraterrestrials does not necessarily mean INTELLIGENT extraterrestrials. It is a high probability that something alive is swimming on worlds near by such as europa. It may only be a microbe but the environment is ripe for it.
> 
> Not all scientists are atheist and almost none of them hate christianity. They almost all agree in the probability of life on other worlds because is IS an overwhelming probability.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This means abiogenesis happens and there have been no evidence of that happening.  The reality is there has been no abiogenesis in our solar system unless there are microbial life below the surface of Mars or on Europa moon.
Click to expand...

The Miller-Urey experiment proved abiogenesis happens and engenders (micro) evolution.


----------



## esalla

danielpalos said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The hypothesis of a multi verse is valid. It is true that it may never be proven but that does not refute it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No one has to refute anything.  It's up to the claimer to show his claim.
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> xtra terretrials are very nearly a foregone conclusion. It is a near certianty that they exist. Just because we have been listening for decades is irrelevant. Radio signlas travel at the speed of light but the universe or for that matter the local area of the galaxy is so large that our own signals have only barely reached a few other star systems. For all we know an intelligent extraterrestrial species could have begun broadcasting centuries ago but be thousands of light years away which would mean we have many more thousands of years before their signals can reach us. If one is only 100 light years away and began trasmitting radio signals 50 years ago we wont be able to know it for another fifty years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> These are claims and nothing backs it up.  Instead, we found scientific theories that show aliens didn't happen.
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> For that matter extraterrestrials does not necessarily mean INTELLIGENT extraterrestrials. It is a high probability that something alive is swimming on worlds near by such as europa. It may only be a microbe but the environment is ripe for it.
> 
> Not all scientists are atheist and almost none of them hate christianity. They almost all agree in the probability of life on other worlds because is IS an overwhelming probability.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This means abiogenesis happens and there have been no evidence of that happening.  The reality is there has been no abiogenesis in our solar system unless there are microbial life below the surface of Mars or on Europa moon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Miller-Urey experiment proved abiogenesis happens and engenders (micro) evolution.
Click to expand...

The Miller-Urey experiment proved or disproved nothing as abiogenesis was not demonstrated.

If I am wrong you can name the organism that these turds created

Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

Delusions


----------



## danielpalos

esalla said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The hypothesis of a multi verse is valid. It is true that it may never be proven but that does not refute it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No one has to refute anything.  It's up to the claimer to show his claim.
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> xtra terretrials are very nearly a foregone conclusion. It is a near certianty that they exist. Just because we have been listening for decades is irrelevant. Radio signlas travel at the speed of light but the universe or for that matter the local area of the galaxy is so large that our own signals have only barely reached a few other star systems. For all we know an intelligent extraterrestrial species could have begun broadcasting centuries ago but be thousands of light years away which would mean we have many more thousands of years before their signals can reach us. If one is only 100 light years away and began trasmitting radio signals 50 years ago we wont be able to know it for another fifty years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> These are claims and nothing backs it up.  Instead, we found scientific theories that show aliens didn't happen.
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> For that matter extraterrestrials does not necessarily mean INTELLIGENT extraterrestrials. It is a high probability that something alive is swimming on worlds near by such as europa. It may only be a microbe but the environment is ripe for it.
> 
> Not all scientists are atheist and almost none of them hate christianity. They almost all agree in the probability of life on other worlds because is IS an overwhelming probability.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This means abiogenesis happens and there have been no evidence of that happening.  The reality is there has been no abiogenesis in our solar system unless there are microbial life below the surface of Mars or on Europa moon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Miller-Urey experiment proved abiogenesis happens and engenders (micro) evolution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Miller-Urey experiment proved or disproved nothing as abiogenesis was not demonstrated.
> 
> If I am wrong you can name the organism that these turds created
> 
> Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
> 
> Delusions
Click to expand...

It did show a potential (possibility frontier) for abiogenesis and micro-evolution.  Your view would take millions if not billions of years after that.


----------



## james bond

Soupnazi630 said:


> There are no theories that aliens did not happen.



First, we define aliens as intelligent aliens.  We're not discussing just outer space abiogenesis.  We have Drake's Equation, Fermi's Paradox, The Great Filter, and other arguments against it.  The fine tuning facts prevent abiogenesis, so it becomes a big reason for no aliens.  

Furthermore, the Bible does not state God created aliens nor Jesus died to save aliens.  The hard evidence is none has been found despite SETI, optical SETI, Alien Telescope Array, space explorations and fly bys with probes and powerful telescopes.  There are other methods of contact which have been explored, but still nothing.  

The atheist scientists such a Neil deGrasse Tyson and Stephen Hawking still think they exist, but no evidence for them.  Hawking has died not knowing aliens exist like Carl Sagan.  deGrasse Tyson will die without knowing, too, and he says sometimes it keeps him up at night thinking about how science can help find them.  Other top scientists who believed in the possibility of aliens and have died without knowing are Albert Einstein, Nikola Tesla, and Richard Feynman.



Soupnazi630 said:


> The fact that we are here proves abiogenesis happens



It also proves God is the creator.  More evidence for God than abiogenesis or aliens because we found a book that explains step-by-step how it happened.  Atheists still have vast universe and top scientists who believe in it, but they have all died without ever knowing aliens or abiogenesis.  Creation scientists and I believe the vast universe demonstrates the beauty, complexity, and glory of God instead.


----------



## Soupnazi630

james bond said:


> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are no theories that aliens did not happen.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First, we define aliens as intelligent aliens.  We're not discussing just outer space abiogenesis.  We have Drake's Equation, Fermi's Paradox, The Great Filter, and other arguments against it.  The fine tuning facts prevent abiogenesis, so it becomes a big reason for no aliens.
> 
> Furthermore, the Bible does not state God created aliens nor Jesus died to save aliens.  The hard evidence is none has been found despite SETI, optical SETI, Alien Telescope Array, space explorations and fly bys with probes and powerful telescopes.  There are other methods of contact which have been explored, but still nothing.
> 
> The atheist scientists such a Neil deGrasse Tyson and Stephen Hawking still think they exist, but no evidence for them.  Hawking has died not knowing aliens exist like Carl Sagan.  deGrasse Tyson will die without knowing, too, and he says sometimes it keeps him up at night thinking about how science can help find them.  Other top scientists who believed in the possibility of aliens and have died without knowing are Albert Einstein, Nikola Tesla, and Richard Feynman.
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The fact that we are here proves abiogenesis happens
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It also proves God is the creator.  More evidence for God than abiogenesis or aliens because we found a book that explains step-by-step how it happened.  Atheists still have vast universe and top scientists who believe in it, but they have all died without ever knowing aliens or abiogenesis.  Creation scientists and I believe the vast universe demonstrates the beauty, complexity, and glory of God instead.
Click to expand...

We do not define it that way in fact. Extraterrestrials can mean any form of life.

There are arguments against it but the odds remain unchanged and in fact the odds are overwhelming that life exists elsewhere.

There are NO facts, fine tuning or otherwise, which prevent abiogenesis. Not having found hard evidence yet means nothing since wer have only barely begun to look for them. Declaring that aliens perobablty do not exist at this point is akin to taking a plane to cairo, walking around the airport for an hour, then comin back and saying that there are no elephants in Africa because you checked and saw none.

The odds still stand that there is probably life and nothing about abiogensis refutes that.

Nothing whatsoeevr proves god exists or is the creator. Such beliefs are strictly based on blind faith with no evidence of any kind.


----------



## james bond

danielpalos said:


> It did show a potential (possibility frontier) for abiogenesis and micro-evolution. Your view would take millions if not billions of years after that.



Urey-Miller tried to show abiogenesis experimentally, but failed.  There hasn't been any new experiments like it because of the discovery of chirality and the water conditions preclude it from happening.


----------



## danielpalos

james bond said:


> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are no theories that aliens did not happen.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First, we define aliens as intelligent aliens.  We're not discussing just outer space abiogenesis.  We have Drake's Equation, Fermi's Paradox, The Great Filter, and other arguments against it.  The fine tuning facts prevent abiogenesis, so it becomes a big reason for no aliens.
> 
> Furthermore, the Bible does not state God created aliens nor Jesus died to save aliens.  The hard evidence is none has been found despite SETI, optical SETI, Alien Telescope Array, space explorations and fly bys with probes and powerful telescopes.  There are other methods of contact which have been explored, but still nothing.
> 
> The atheist scientists such a Neil deGrasse Tyson and Stephen Hawking still think they exist, but no evidence for them.  Hawking has died not knowing aliens exist like Carl Sagan.  deGrasse Tyson will die without knowing, too, and he says sometimes it keeps him up at night thinking about how science can help find them.  Other top scientists who believed in the possibility of aliens and have died without knowing are Albert Einstein, Nikola Tesla, and Richard Feynman.
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The fact that we are here proves abiogenesis happens
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It also proves God is the creator.  More evidence for God than abiogenesis or aliens because we found a book that explains step-by-step how it happened.  Atheists still have vast universe and top scientists who believe in it, but they have all died without ever knowing aliens or abiogenesis.  Creation scientists and I believe the vast universe demonstrates the beauty, complexity, and glory of God instead.
Click to expand...

It happened at least once in our galaxy; there are tens of thousands of galaxies in the emptiest part of known space as shown by the Hubble deep field study.


----------



## danielpalos

james bond said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> It did show a potential (possibility frontier) for abiogenesis and micro-evolution. Your view would take millions if not billions of years after that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Urey-Miller tried to show abiogenesis experimentally, but failed.  There hasn't been any new experiments like it because of the discovery of chirality and the water conditions preclude it from happening.
Click to expand...

Amino acids are the "building blocks of life' and that potential possibility frontier. The odds are simply in our favor as the Hubble deep field study showed.


----------



## Soupnazi630

james bond said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> It did show a potential (possibility frontier) for abiogenesis and micro-evolution. Your view would take millions if not billions of years after that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Urey-Miller tried to show abiogenesis experimentally, but failed.  There hasn't been any new experiments like it because of the discovery of chirality and the water conditions preclude it from happening.
Click to expand...


No, chirality and water conditions do not preclude it from happening.


----------



## sealybobo

Blackrook said:


> But belief in these theories are more wishful thinking than reality.
> 
> The concept that there are an infinite number of parallel universes is poppycock. Even if true, there will never be a way to prove it.
> 
> If extra-terrestrial civilizations existed, we'd know it by now. We've been listening for their radio signals for decades and in all that time we've heard squat.
> 
> The reality is that atheist scientists have pushed belief in these notions because they hate Christianity and want to undermine people's faith in religion.


Maybe. But I think even scientists who don’t hate Christianity are open to the possibility of multiple universes or even creatures on other planets.
We don’t believe in multiple universes. We are just open to the idea. No god sent his only begotten son Neal degrass Tyson to tell us about other universes you go to when you die if you just believe in them


----------



## esalla

danielpalos said:


> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The hypothesis of a multi verse is valid. It is true that it may never be proven but that does not refute it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No one has to refute anything.  It's up to the claimer to show his claim.
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> xtra terretrials are very nearly a foregone conclusion. It is a near certianty that they exist. Just because we have been listening for decades is irrelevant. Radio signlas travel at the speed of light but the universe or for that matter the local area of the galaxy is so large that our own signals have only barely reached a few other star systems. For all we know an intelligent extraterrestrial species could have begun broadcasting centuries ago but be thousands of light years away which would mean we have many more thousands of years before their signals can reach us. If one is only 100 light years away and began trasmitting radio signals 50 years ago we wont be able to know it for another fifty years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> These are claims and nothing backs it up.  Instead, we found scientific theories that show aliens didn't happen.
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> For that matter extraterrestrials does not necessarily mean INTELLIGENT extraterrestrials. It is a high probability that something alive is swimming on worlds near by such as europa. It may only be a microbe but the environment is ripe for it.
> 
> Not all scientists are atheist and almost none of them hate christianity. They almost all agree in the probability of life on other worlds because is IS an overwhelming probability.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This means abiogenesis happens and there have been no evidence of that happening.  The reality is there has been no abiogenesis in our solar system unless there are microbial life below the surface of Mars or on Europa moon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Miller-Urey experiment proved abiogenesis happens and engenders (micro) evolution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Miller-Urey experiment proved or disproved nothing as abiogenesis was not demonstrated.
> 
> If I am wrong you can name the organism that these turds created
> 
> Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
> 
> Delusions
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It did show a potential (possibility frontier) for abiogenesis and micro-evolution.  Your view would take millions if not billions of years after that.
Click to expand...

The experiment was a failure as life is not chemistry.  Life is chemistry created by molecular programming that can not happen if you shake a bubble.  It would take a trillion years for one part of a gene to form and that one part would just vanish not begin growing, replicating and evolving because there is no programming.  LOL take your hard drive out of your computer and try to do something with the computer


----------



## james bond

Soupnazi630 said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are no theories that aliens did not happen.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First, we define aliens as intelligent aliens.  We're not discussing just outer space abiogenesis.  We have Drake's Equation, Fermi's Paradox, The Great Filter, and other arguments against it.  The fine tuning facts prevent abiogenesis, so it becomes a big reason for no aliens.
> 
> Furthermore, the Bible does not state God created aliens nor Jesus died to save aliens.  The hard evidence is none has been found despite SETI, optical SETI, Alien Telescope Array, space explorations and fly bys with probes and powerful telescopes.  There are other methods of contact which have been explored, but still nothing.
> 
> The atheist scientists such a Neil deGrasse Tyson and Stephen Hawking still think they exist, but no evidence for them.  Hawking has died not knowing aliens exist like Carl Sagan.  deGrasse Tyson will die without knowing, too, and he says sometimes it keeps him up at night thinking about how science can help find them.  Other top scientists who believed in the possibility of aliens and have died without knowing are Albert Einstein, Nikola Tesla, and Richard Feynman.
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The fact that we are here proves abiogenesis happens
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It also proves God is the creator.  More evidence for God than abiogenesis or aliens because we found a book that explains step-by-step how it happened.  Atheists still have vast universe and top scientists who believe in it, but they have all died without ever knowing aliens or abiogenesis.  Creation scientists and I believe the vast universe demonstrates the beauty, complexity, and glory of God instead.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We do not define it that way in fact. Extraterrestrials can mean any form of life.
> 
> There are arguments against it but the odds remain unchanged and in fact the odds are overwhelming that life exists elsewhere.
> 
> There are NO facts, fine tuning or otherwise, which prevent abiogenesis. Not having found hard evidence yet means nothing since wer have only barely begun to look for them. Declaring that aliens perobablty do not exist at this point is akin to taking a plane to cairo, walking around the airport for an hour, then comin back and saying that there are no elephants in Africa because you checked and saw none.
> 
> The odds still stand that there is probably life and nothing about abiogensis refutes that.
> 
> Nothing whatsoeevr proves god exists or is the creator. Such beliefs are strictly based on blind faith with no evidence of any kind.
Click to expand...


I see _denial_ in your post and this is true of many atheist scientists at NASA.  I'm going by what atheist scientists believed that we would find intelligent life elsewhere.  Since they haven't even with all their looking, now they are going for finding microbial life or history of it on Mars.  I think they also plan to visit Europa with probes and rovers before 2030.

I think creation scientists would be for space exploration, too, because not all think the Bible states God didn't create aliens nor Jesus didn't die for all of God's creations.  We could do it in order to find another planet to live on or use for further space explorations.  Some may have attempted a Urey-Miller experiment, too.  It wouldn't hurt to find a cause or find this could not have happened by itself.  The big bang isn't a deal breaker and is further studied.

The two big issues against abiogenesis is that proteins can't just form from loose amino acids.  The second is something would have to guide it to form from proteins into human life.  We can't just have man and woman without sexual development and that is only possible through an intelligence doing the work of putting these proteins together.  It's why Intelligent Design proponents agree with those two truisms of science.

I think you are just spouting your atheist wishes now.


----------



## james bond

danielpalos said:


> It happened at least once in our galaxy; there are tens of thousands of galaxies in the emptiest part of known space as shown by the Hubble deep field study.



It happened on Earth, but we disagree on the cause.  The Earth is a special place by the Anthropic Principle.  That eliminates practically most, if not all, of the other galaxies based on probabilities.


----------



## james bond

Soupnazi630 said:


> No, chirality and water conditions do not preclude it from happening.



Where is your evidence?  It sounds like more _denial_ due to your religious beliefs.


----------



## james bond

danielpalos said:


> Amino acids are the "building blocks of life' and that potential possibility frontier.



The building blocks of life are _proteins_.  Amino acids are just the particles that form proteins, but it can't just happen randomly.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are no theories that aliens did not happen.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First, we define aliens as intelligent aliens.  We're not discussing just outer space abiogenesis.  We have Drake's Equation, Fermi's Paradox, The Great Filter, and other arguments against it.  The fine tuning facts prevent abiogenesis, so it becomes a big reason for no aliens.
> 
> Furthermore, the Bible does not state God created aliens nor Jesus died to save aliens.  The hard evidence is none has been found despite SETI, optical SETI, Alien Telescope Array, space explorations and fly bys with probes and powerful telescopes.  There are other methods of contact which have been explored, but still nothing.
> 
> The atheist scientists such a Neil deGrasse Tyson and Stephen Hawking still think they exist, but no evidence for them.  Hawking has died not knowing aliens exist like Carl Sagan.  deGrasse Tyson will die without knowing, too, and he says sometimes it keeps him up at night thinking about how science can help find them.  Other top scientists who believed in the possibility of aliens and have died without knowing are Albert Einstein, Nikola Tesla, and Richard Feynman.
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The fact that we are here proves abiogenesis happens
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It also proves God is the creator.  More evidence for God than abiogenesis or aliens because we found a book that explains step-by-step how it happened.  Atheists still have vast universe and top scientists who believe in it, but they have all died without ever knowing aliens or abiogenesis.  Creation scientists and I believe the vast universe demonstrates the beauty, complexity, and glory of God instead.
Click to expand...

Please identify where Fermi's Paradox, Drake's Equation, The Great Filter, and your nonsensical “fine tuning facts” presents any evidence for or against alien life.

Please support your nonsense claim about some “fine tuning” you claim exist. Please supply peer reviewed evidence that a) supports your version of the gods, and then, b) supporting evidence that your gods have a supernatural hand in the workings of the universe.


----------



## Soupnazi630

james bond said:


> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are no theories that aliens did not happen.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First, we define aliens as intelligent aliens.  We're not discussing just outer space abiogenesis.  We have Drake's Equation, Fermi's Paradox, The Great Filter, and other arguments against it.  The fine tuning facts prevent abiogenesis, so it becomes a big reason for no aliens.
> 
> Furthermore, the Bible does not state God created aliens nor Jesus died to save aliens.  The hard evidence is none has been found despite SETI, optical SETI, Alien Telescope Array, space explorations and fly bys with probes and powerful telescopes.  There are other methods of contact which have been explored, but still nothing.
> 
> The atheist scientists such a Neil deGrasse Tyson and Stephen Hawking still think they exist, but no evidence for them.  Hawking has died not knowing aliens exist like Carl Sagan.  deGrasse Tyson will die without knowing, too, and he says sometimes it keeps him up at night thinking about how science can help find them.  Other top scientists who believed in the possibility of aliens and have died without knowing are Albert Einstein, Nikola Tesla, and Richard Feynman.
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The fact that we are here proves abiogenesis happens
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It also proves God is the creator.  More evidence for God than abiogenesis or aliens because we found a book that explains step-by-step how it happened.  Atheists still have vast universe and top scientists who believe in it, but they have all died without ever knowing aliens or abiogenesis.  Creation scientists and I believe the vast universe demonstrates the beauty, complexity, and glory of God instead.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We do not define it that way in fact. Extraterrestrials can mean any form of life.
> 
> There are arguments against it but the odds remain unchanged and in fact the odds are overwhelming that life exists elsewhere.
> 
> There are NO facts, fine tuning or otherwise, which prevent abiogenesis. Not having found hard evidence yet means nothing since wer have only barely begun to look for them. Declaring that aliens perobablty do not exist at this point is akin to taking a plane to cairo, walking around the airport for an hour, then comin back and saying that there are no elephants in Africa because you checked and saw none.
> 
> The odds still stand that there is probably life and nothing about abiogensis refutes that.
> 
> Nothing whatsoeevr proves god exists or is the creator. Such beliefs are strictly based on blind faith with no evidence of any kind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I see _denial_ in your post and this is true of many atheist scientists at NASA.  I'm going by what atheist scientists believed that we would find intelligent life elsewhere.  Since they haven't even with all their looking, now they are going for finding microbial life or history of it on Mars.  I think they also plan to visit Europa with probes and rovers before 2030.
> 
> I think creation scientists would be for space exploration, too, because not all think the Bible states God didn't create aliens nor Jesus didn't die for all of God's creations.  We could do it in order to find another planet to live on or use for further space explorations.  Some may have attempted a Urey-Miller experiment, too.  It wouldn't hurt to find a cause or find this could not have happened by itself.  The big bang isn't a deal breaker and is further studied.
> 
> The two big issues against abiogenesis is that proteins can't just form from loose amino acids.  The second is something would have to guide it to form from proteins into human life.  We can't just have man and woman without sexual development and that is only possible through an intelligence doing the work of putting these proteins together.  It's why Intelligent Design proponents agree with those two truisms of science.
> 
> I think you are just spouting your atheist wishes now.
Click to expand...

You see no denial.

Proteins are formed by amino acids and the fact that we cannot make it happen yet does not means we cant figure out how.

Intelligtent design is not needed at all for anything in the universe and no evidence supports it.


----------



## danielpalos

james bond said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Amino acids are the "building blocks of life' and that potential possibility frontier.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The building blocks of life are _proteins_.  Amino acids are just the particles that form proteins, but it can't just happen randomly.
Click to expand...

it did, as the Miller-Urey experiment proved.


----------



## Soupnazi630

james bond said:


> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, chirality and water conditions do not preclude it from happening.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where is your evidence?  It sounds like more _denial_ due to your religious beliefs.
Click to expand...

I do not need evidence you do.

I stated a negative. You stated a faklsehood.

I have stated no denial of any kind yet nor expressed any religious belief of any kind.

You have stated falsehoods and massicve ignorance of science.


----------



## esalla

Hollie said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are no theories that aliens did not happen.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First, we define aliens as intelligent aliens.  We're not discussing just outer space abiogenesis.  We have Drake's Equation, Fermi's Paradox, The Great Filter, and other arguments against it.  The fine tuning facts prevent abiogenesis, so it becomes a big reason for no aliens.
> 
> Furthermore, the Bible does not state God created aliens nor Jesus died to save aliens.  The hard evidence is none has been found despite SETI, optical SETI, Alien Telescope Array, space explorations and fly bys with probes and powerful telescopes.  There are other methods of contact which have been explored, but still nothing.
> 
> The atheist scientists such a Neil deGrasse Tyson and Stephen Hawking still think they exist, but no evidence for them.  Hawking has died not knowing aliens exist like Carl Sagan.  deGrasse Tyson will die without knowing, too, and he says sometimes it keeps him up at night thinking about how science can help find them.  Other top scientists who believed in the possibility of aliens and have died without knowing are Albert Einstein, Nikola Tesla, and Richard Feynman.
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The fact that we are here proves abiogenesis happens
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It also proves God is the creator.  More evidence for God than abiogenesis or aliens because we found a book that explains step-by-step how it happened.  Atheists still have vast universe and top scientists who believe in it, but they have all died without ever knowing aliens or abiogenesis.  Creation scientists and I believe the vast universe demonstrates the beauty, complexity, and glory of God instead.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Please identify where Fermi's Paradox, Drake's Equation, The Great Filter, and your nonsensical “fine tuning facts” presents any evidence for or against alien life.
> 
> Please support your nonsense claim about some “fine tuning” you claim exist. Please supply peer reviewed evidence that a) supports your version of the gods, and then, b) supporting evidence that your gods have a supernatural hand in the workings of the universe.
Click to expand...

Hollie please supply the name of the organisms that you claimed scientist observed speciating


----------



## Grumblenuts

James apparently believes that just name dropping scientific terms constitutes an argument for whatever he imagines he's arguing. 
"because of the discovery of chirality" - wtf? 

"The building blocks of life are _proteins_. Amino acids are just the particles that form proteins, but it can't just happen randomly."
Particles? - wtf? Enough of this!
MedlinePlus - Trusted Health Information for You:


> Amino acids are organic compounds that combine to form proteins. *Amino acids and proteins* are the building blocks of life.


----------



## Grumblenuts

Blackrook said:


> The reality is that atheist scientists have pushed belief in these notions because they hate Christianity and want to undermine people's faith in religion.


Feel better now?


----------



## Hollie

Blackrook said:


> The reality is that atheist scientists have pushed belief in these notions because they hate Christianity and want to undermine people's faith in religion.



That was supposed to be kept secret.


----------



## james bond

Soupnazi630 said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, chirality and water conditions do not preclude it from happening.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where is your evidence?  It sounds like more _denial_ due to your religious beliefs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I do not need evidence you do.
> 
> I stated a negative. You stated a faklsehood.
> 
> I have stated no denial of any kind yet nor expressed any religious belief of any kind.
> 
> You have stated falsehoods and massicve ignorance of science.
Click to expand...


You've been mopped all over the floor on this one.  You have no evidence, but just denial (the river in Egypt) of the truth.

I can see that you are upset so you should just run away.


----------



## james bond

Grumblenuts said:


> James apparently believes that just name dropping scientific terms constitutes an argument for whatever he imagines he's arguing.
> "because of the discovery of chirality" - wtf?
> 
> "The building blocks of life are _proteins_. Amino acids are just the particles that form proteins, but it can't just happen randomly."
> Particles? - wtf? Enough of this!
> MedlinePlus - Trusted Health Information for You:
> 
> 
> 
> Amino acids are organic compounds that combine to form proteins. *Amino acids and proteins* are the building blocks of life.
Click to expand...


Haha.  Why aren't you all over the person who lost the debate badly?

Instead, you are arguing about semantics which is boring.


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are no theories that aliens did not happen.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First, we define aliens as intelligent aliens.  We're not discussing just outer space abiogenesis.  We have Drake's Equation, Fermi's Paradox, The Great Filter, and other arguments against it.  The fine tuning facts prevent abiogenesis, so it becomes a big reason for no aliens.
> 
> Furthermore, the Bible does not state God created aliens nor Jesus died to save aliens.  The hard evidence is none has been found despite SETI, optical SETI, Alien Telescope Array, space explorations and fly bys with probes and powerful telescopes.  There are other methods of contact which have been explored, but still nothing.
> 
> The atheist scientists such a Neil deGrasse Tyson and Stephen Hawking still think they exist, but no evidence for them.  Hawking has died not knowing aliens exist like Carl Sagan.  deGrasse Tyson will die without knowing, too, and he says sometimes it keeps him up at night thinking about how science can help find them.  Other top scientists who believed in the possibility of aliens and have died without knowing are Albert Einstein, Nikola Tesla, and Richard Feynman.
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The fact that we are here proves abiogenesis happens
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It also proves God is the creator.  More evidence for God than abiogenesis or aliens because we found a book that explains step-by-step how it happened.  Atheists still have vast universe and top scientists who believe in it, but they have all died without ever knowing aliens or abiogenesis.  Creation scientists and I believe the vast universe demonstrates the beauty, complexity, and glory of God instead.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Please identify where Fermi's Paradox, Drake's Equation, The Great Filter, and your nonsensical “fine tuning facts” presents any evidence for or against alien life.
> 
> Please support your nonsense claim about some “fine tuning” you claim exist. Please supply peer reviewed evidence that a) supports your version of the gods, and then, b) supporting evidence that your gods have a supernatural hand in the workings of the universe.
Click to expand...


You been supplied with it many times, but just can't get it through the thickness.

Obviously, it's your side's claim and so need to produce the aliens and evidence of abiogenesis.  That would show the atheist scientists were right and victory is yours.

Until then, the victory goes to the fine tuning side.  I will give you this as ID has passed peer review just to tweak your nose some more -- https://www.breakpoint.org/intelligent-design-passes-peer-review/.


----------



## esalla

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are no theories that aliens did not happen.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First, we define aliens as intelligent aliens.  We're not discussing just outer space abiogenesis.  We have Drake's Equation, Fermi's Paradox, The Great Filter, and other arguments against it.  The fine tuning facts prevent abiogenesis, so it becomes a big reason for no aliens.
> 
> Furthermore, the Bible does not state God created aliens nor Jesus died to save aliens.  The hard evidence is none has been found despite SETI, optical SETI, Alien Telescope Array, space explorations and fly bys with probes and powerful telescopes.  There are other methods of contact which have been explored, but still nothing.
> 
> The atheist scientists such a Neil deGrasse Tyson and Stephen Hawking still think they exist, but no evidence for them.  Hawking has died not knowing aliens exist like Carl Sagan.  deGrasse Tyson will die without knowing, too, and he says sometimes it keeps him up at night thinking about how science can help find them.  Other top scientists who believed in the possibility of aliens and have died without knowing are Albert Einstein, Nikola Tesla, and Richard Feynman.
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The fact that we are here proves abiogenesis happens
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It also proves God is the creator.  More evidence for God than abiogenesis or aliens because we found a book that explains step-by-step how it happened.  Atheists still have vast universe and top scientists who believe in it, but they have all died without ever knowing aliens or abiogenesis.  Creation scientists and I believe the vast universe demonstrates the beauty, complexity, and glory of God instead.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Please identify where Fermi's Paradox, Drake's Equation, The Great Filter, and your nonsensical “fine tuning facts” presents any evidence for or against alien life.
> 
> Please support your nonsense claim about some “fine tuning” you claim exist. Please supply peer reviewed evidence that a) supports your version of the gods, and then, b) supporting evidence that your gods have a supernatural hand in the workings of the universe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You been supplied with it many times, but just can't get it through the thickness.
> 
> Obviously, it's your side's claim and so need to produce the aliens and evidence of abiogenesis.  That would show the atheist scientists were right and victory is yours.
> 
> Until then, the victory goes to the fine tuning side.  I will give you this as ID has passed peer review just to tweak your nose some more -- https://www.breakpoint.org/intelligent-design-passes-peer-review/.
Click to expand...

Hollie believes that species have been observed changing to other species, so she is quite lost in space


----------



## Soupnazi630

james bond said:


> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, chirality and water conditions do not preclude it from happening.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where is your evidence?  It sounds like more _denial_ due to your religious beliefs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I do not need evidence you do.
> 
> I stated a negative. You stated a faklsehood.
> 
> I have stated no denial of any kind yet nor expressed any religious belief of any kind.
> 
> You have stated falsehoods and massicve ignorance of science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You've been mopped all over the floor on this one.  You have no evidence, but just denial (the river in Egypt) of the truth.
> 
> I can see that you are upset so you should just run away.
Click to expand...

No I have not.

You have been defeated t and been crushed 

You have not st aged any truth. You failed to back up your claims proving I have owned you


----------



## Soupnazi630

esalla said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are no theories that aliens did not happen.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First, we define aliens as intelligent aliens.  We're not discussing just outer space abiogenesis.  We have Drake's Equation, Fermi's Paradox, The Great Filter, and other arguments against it.  The fine tuning facts prevent abiogenesis, so it becomes a big reason for no aliens.
> 
> Furthermore, the Bible does not state God created aliens nor Jesus died to save aliens.  The hard evidence is none has been found despite SETI, optical SETI, Alien Telescope Array, space explorations and fly bys with probes and powerful telescopes.  There are other methods of contact which have been explored, but still nothing.
> 
> The atheist scientists such a Neil deGrasse Tyson and Stephen Hawking still think they exist, but no evidence for them.  Hawking has died not knowing aliens exist like Carl Sagan.  deGrasse Tyson will die without knowing, too, and he says sometimes it keeps him up at night thinking about how science can help find them.  Other top scientists who believed in the possibility of aliens and have died without knowing are Albert Einstein, Nikola Tesla, and Richard Feynman.
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The fact that we are here proves abiogenesis happens
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It also proves God is the creator.  More evidence for God than abiogenesis or aliens because we found a book that explains step-by-step how it happened.  Atheists still have vast universe and top scientists who believe in it, but they have all died without ever knowing aliens or abiogenesis.  Creation scientists and I believe the vast universe demonstrates the beauty, complexity, and glory of God instead.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Please identify where Fermi's Paradox, Drake's Equation, The Great Filter, and your nonsensical “fine tuning facts” presents any evidence for or against alien life.
> 
> Please support your nonsense claim about some “fine tuning” you claim exist. Please supply peer reviewed evidence that a) supports your version of the gods, and then, b) supporting evidence that your gods have a supernatural hand in the workings of the universe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You been supplied with it many times, but just can't get it through the thickness.
> 
> Obviously, it's your side's claim and so need to produce the aliens and evidence of abiogenesis.  That would show the atheist scientists were right and victory is yours.
> 
> Until then, the victory goes to the fine tuning side.  I will give you this as ID has passed peer review just to tweak your nose some more -- https://www.breakpoint.org/intelligent-design-passes-peer-review/.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hollie believes that species have been observed changing to other species, so she is quite lost in space
Click to expand...

They have been T

We have seen one species of frog give birth to a whole new species


----------



## Soupnazi630

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are no theories that aliens did not happen.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First, we define aliens as intelligent aliens.  We're not discussing just outer space abiogenesis.  We have Drake's Equation, Fermi's Paradox, The Great Filter, and other arguments against it.  The fine tuning facts prevent abiogenesis, so it becomes a big reason for no aliens.
> 
> Furthermore, the Bible does not state God created aliens nor Jesus died to save aliens.  The hard evidence is none has been found despite SETI, optical SETI, Alien Telescope Array, space explorations and fly bys with probes and powerful telescopes.  There are other methods of contact which have been explored, but still nothing.
> 
> The atheist scientists such a Neil deGrasse Tyson and Stephen Hawking still think they exist, but no evidence for them.  Hawking has died not knowing aliens exist like Carl Sagan.  deGrasse Tyson will die without knowing, too, and he says sometimes it keeps him up at night thinking about how science can help find them.  Other top scientists who believed in the possibility of aliens and have died without knowing are Albert Einstein, Nikola Tesla, and Richard Feynman.
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The fact that we are here proves abiogenesis happens
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It also proves God is the creator.  More evidence for God than abiogenesis or aliens because we found a book that explains step-by-step how it happened.  Atheists still have vast universe and top scientists who believe in it, but they have all died without ever knowing aliens or abiogenesis.  Creation scientists and I believe the vast universe demonstrates the beauty, complexity, and glory of God instead.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Please identify where Fermi's Paradox, Drake's Equation, The Great Filter, and your nonsensical “fine tuning facts” presents any evidence for or against alien life.
> 
> Please support your nonsense claim about some “fine tuning” you claim exist. Please supply peer reviewed evidence that a) supports your version of the gods, and then, b) supporting evidence that your gods have a supernatural hand in the workings of the universe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You been supplied with it many times, but just can't get it through the thickness.
> 
> Obviously, it's your side's claim and so need to produce the aliens and evidence of abiogenesis.  That would show the atheist scientists were right and victory is yours.
> 
> Until then, the victory goes to the fine tuning side.  I will give you this as ID has passed peer review just to tweak your nose some more -- https://www.breakpoint.org/intelligent-design-passes-peer-review/.
Click to expand...

That is an outright lie.

You have never answered or supplied it 

I D has never been supported by evidence or passed per review


----------



## esalla

Soupnazi630 said:


> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are no theories that aliens did not happen.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First, we define aliens as intelligent aliens.  We're not discussing just outer space abiogenesis.  We have Drake's Equation, Fermi's Paradox, The Great Filter, and other arguments against it.  The fine tuning facts prevent abiogenesis, so it becomes a big reason for no aliens.
> 
> Furthermore, the Bible does not state God created aliens nor Jesus died to save aliens.  The hard evidence is none has been found despite SETI, optical SETI, Alien Telescope Array, space explorations and fly bys with probes and powerful telescopes.  There are other methods of contact which have been explored, but still nothing.
> 
> The atheist scientists such a Neil deGrasse Tyson and Stephen Hawking still think they exist, but no evidence for them.  Hawking has died not knowing aliens exist like Carl Sagan.  deGrasse Tyson will die without knowing, too, and he says sometimes it keeps him up at night thinking about how science can help find them.  Other top scientists who believed in the possibility of aliens and have died without knowing are Albert Einstein, Nikola Tesla, and Richard Feynman.
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The fact that we are here proves abiogenesis happens
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It also proves God is the creator.  More evidence for God than abiogenesis or aliens because we found a book that explains step-by-step how it happened.  Atheists still have vast universe and top scientists who believe in it, but they have all died without ever knowing aliens or abiogenesis.  Creation scientists and I believe the vast universe demonstrates the beauty, complexity, and glory of God instead.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Please identify where Fermi's Paradox, Drake's Equation, The Great Filter, and your nonsensical “fine tuning facts” presents any evidence for or against alien life.
> 
> Please support your nonsense claim about some “fine tuning” you claim exist. Please supply peer reviewed evidence that a) supports your version of the gods, and then, b) supporting evidence that your gods have a supernatural hand in the workings of the universe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You been supplied with it many times, but just can't get it through the thickness.
> 
> Obviously, it's your side's claim and so need to produce the aliens and evidence of abiogenesis.  That would show the atheist scientists were right and victory is yours.
> 
> Until then, the victory goes to the fine tuning side.  I will give you this as ID has passed peer review just to tweak your nose some more -- https://www.breakpoint.org/intelligent-design-passes-peer-review/.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hollie believes that species have been observed changing to other species, so she is quite lost in space
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They have been T
> 
> We have seen one species of frog give birth to a whole new species
Click to expand...

Actually kid the speciation theory takes millions of years.

You were tripping on a hallucinogenic frog apparently


----------



## Soupnazi630

esalla said:


> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are no theories that aliens did not happen.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First, we define aliens as intelligent aliens.  We're not discussing just outer space abiogenesis.  We have Drake's Equation, Fermi's Paradox, The Great Filter, and other arguments against it.  The fine tuning facts prevent abiogenesis, so it becomes a big reason for no aliens.
> 
> Furthermore, the Bible does not state God created aliens nor Jesus died to save aliens.  The hard evidence is none has been found despite SETI, optical SETI, Alien Telescope Array, space explorations and fly bys with probes and powerful telescopes.  There are other methods of contact which have been explored, but still nothing.
> 
> The atheist scientists such a Neil deGrasse Tyson and Stephen Hawking still think they exist, but no evidence for them.  Hawking has died not knowing aliens exist like Carl Sagan.  deGrasse Tyson will die without knowing, too, and he says sometimes it keeps him up at night thinking about how science can help find them.  Other top scientists who believed in the possibility of aliens and have died without knowing are Albert Einstein, Nikola Tesla, and Richard Feynman.
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The fact that we are here proves abiogenesis happens
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It also proves God is the creator.  More evidence for God than abiogenesis or aliens because we found a book that explains step-by-step how it happened.  Atheists still have vast universe and top scientists who believe in it, but they have all died without ever knowing aliens or abiogenesis.  Creation scientists and I believe the vast universe demonstrates the beauty, complexity, and glory of God instead.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Please identify where Fermi's Paradox, Drake's Equation, The Great Filter, and your nonsensical “fine tuning facts” presents any evidence for or against alien life.
> 
> Please support your nonsense claim about some “fine tuning” you claim exist. Please supply peer reviewed evidence that a) supports your version of the gods, and then, b) supporting evidence that your gods have a supernatural hand in the workings of the universe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You been supplied with it many times, but just can't get it through the thickness.
> 
> Obviously, it's your side's claim and so need to produce the aliens and evidence of abiogenesis.  That would show the atheist scientists were right and victory is yours.
> 
> Until then, the victory goes to the fine tuning side.  I will give you this as ID has passed peer review just to tweak your nose some more -- https://www.breakpoint.org/intelligent-design-passes-peer-review/.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hollie believes that species have been observed changing to other species, so she is quite lost in space
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They have been T
> 
> We have seen one species of frog give birth to a whole new species
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually kid the speciation theory takes millions of years.
> 
> You were tripping on a hallucinogenic frog apparently
Click to expand...

That is not what you asked little boy.

You asked a specific question which was answered and in fact speciation typically takes millions of years but there are exceptions called mutations.

Now go study junior your public school failed you just as it did in the conspiracy threads where you were pwned


----------



## esalla

Soupnazi630 said:


> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are no theories that aliens did not happen.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First, we define aliens as intelligent aliens.  We're not discussing just outer space abiogenesis.  We have Drake's Equation, Fermi's Paradox, The Great Filter, and other arguments against it.  The fine tuning facts prevent abiogenesis, so it becomes a big reason for no aliens.
> 
> Furthermore, the Bible does not state God created aliens nor Jesus died to save aliens.  The hard evidence is none has been found despite SETI, optical SETI, Alien Telescope Array, space explorations and fly bys with probes and powerful telescopes.  There are other methods of contact which have been explored, but still nothing.
> 
> The atheist scientists such a Neil deGrasse Tyson and Stephen Hawking still think they exist, but no evidence for them.  Hawking has died not knowing aliens exist like Carl Sagan.  deGrasse Tyson will die without knowing, too, and he says sometimes it keeps him up at night thinking about how science can help find them.  Other top scientists who believed in the possibility of aliens and have died without knowing are Albert Einstein, Nikola Tesla, and Richard Feynman.
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The fact that we are here proves abiogenesis happens
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It also proves God is the creator.  More evidence for God than abiogenesis or aliens because we found a book that explains step-by-step how it happened.  Atheists still have vast universe and top scientists who believe in it, but they have all died without ever knowing aliens or abiogenesis.  Creation scientists and I believe the vast universe demonstrates the beauty, complexity, and glory of God instead.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Please identify where Fermi's Paradox, Drake's Equation, The Great Filter, and your nonsensical “fine tuning facts” presents any evidence for or against alien life.
> 
> Please support your nonsense claim about some “fine tuning” you claim exist. Please supply peer reviewed evidence that a) supports your version of the gods, and then, b) supporting evidence that your gods have a supernatural hand in the workings of the universe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You been supplied with it many times, but just can't get it through the thickness.
> 
> Obviously, it's your side's claim and so need to produce the aliens and evidence of abiogenesis.  That would show the atheist scientists were right and victory is yours.
> 
> Until then, the victory goes to the fine tuning side.  I will give you this as ID has passed peer review just to tweak your nose some more -- https://www.breakpoint.org/intelligent-design-passes-peer-review/.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hollie believes that species have been observed changing to other species, so she is quite lost in space
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They have been T
> 
> We have seen one species of frog give birth to a whole new species
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually kid the speciation theory takes millions of years.
> 
> You were tripping on a hallucinogenic frog apparently
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is not what you asked little boy.
> 
> You asked a specific question which was answered and in fact speciation typically takes millions of years but there are exceptions called mutations.
> 
> Now go study junior your public school failed you just as it did in the conspiracy threads where you were pwned
Click to expand...

There is no scientific observation of speciation.  If there is you can play the video and name the new species.

Grow up, if possible


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are no theories that aliens did not happen.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First, we define aliens as intelligent aliens.  We're not discussing just outer space abiogenesis.  We have Drake's Equation, Fermi's Paradox, The Great Filter, and other arguments against it.  The fine tuning facts prevent abiogenesis, so it becomes a big reason for no aliens.
> 
> Furthermore, the Bible does not state God created aliens nor Jesus died to save aliens.  The hard evidence is none has been found despite SETI, optical SETI, Alien Telescope Array, space explorations and fly bys with probes and powerful telescopes.  There are other methods of contact which have been explored, but still nothing.
> 
> The atheist scientists such a Neil deGrasse Tyson and Stephen Hawking still think they exist, but no evidence for them.  Hawking has died not knowing aliens exist like Carl Sagan.  deGrasse Tyson will die without knowing, too, and he says sometimes it keeps him up at night thinking about how science can help find them.  Other top scientists who believed in the possibility of aliens and have died without knowing are Albert Einstein, Nikola Tesla, and Richard Feynman.
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The fact that we are here proves abiogenesis happens
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It also proves God is the creator.  More evidence for God than abiogenesis or aliens because we found a book that explains step-by-step how it happened.  Atheists still have vast universe and top scientists who believe in it, but they have all died without ever knowing aliens or abiogenesis.  Creation scientists and I believe the vast universe demonstrates the beauty, complexity, and glory of God instead.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Please identify where Fermi's Paradox, Drake's Equation, The Great Filter, and your nonsensical “fine tuning facts” presents any evidence for or against alien life.
> 
> Please support your nonsense claim about some “fine tuning” you claim exist. Please supply peer reviewed evidence that a) supports your version of the gods, and then, b) supporting evidence that your gods have a supernatural hand in the workings of the universe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You been supplied with it many times, but just can't get it through the thickness.
> 
> Obviously, it's your side's claim and so need to produce the aliens and evidence of abiogenesis.  That would show the atheist scientists were right and victory is yours.
> 
> Until then, the victory goes to the fine tuning side.  I will give you this as ID has passed peer review just to tweak your nose some more -- https://www.breakpoint.org/intelligent-design-passes-peer-review/.
Click to expand...

Firstly, there is no requirement for science to produce aliens. That’s ridiculous.

Secondly, It is known with absolute certainty that abiogenesis occurred. The fact that life exists on the planet is proof of that. What is not known are the exact mechanisms. Defaulting to “the gawds did it” is pointless and time wasting unless and until one or more of the gods are demonstrated to exist or have existed. Various religions argue (for different reasons) that various gods with / without some human-like will to circumvent biology & physics for their own ends are responsible for existence. Nothing cut and pasted from your creation ministries presents anything other than “canned” propaganda.

It’s fair to point out that nothing has been presented to support any claim to your version of supernatural gods and nothing to support any claim to your gods magically creating all of existence.

A rational case can be made such that in order to make a positive difference in science literacy, people should distinguish between superstition / religious belief and the physical sciences.  Notably, such a perspective is absent at the core of the ID’iot creationer movement which claims to find evidence for supernatural  intervention in biology, relegating what its adherents call “natural” and “random” to utter absurdity.


A link to a Christian ministry does nothing to support your claim to “fine tuning”.

A link to a Christian ministry does nothing to support your claim to ID’iot creationism


----------



## esalla

Hollie said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are no theories that aliens did not happen.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First, we define aliens as intelligent aliens.  We're not discussing just outer space abiogenesis.  We have Drake's Equation, Fermi's Paradox, The Great Filter, and other arguments against it.  The fine tuning facts prevent abiogenesis, so it becomes a big reason for no aliens.
> 
> Furthermore, the Bible does not state God created aliens nor Jesus died to save aliens.  The hard evidence is none has been found despite SETI, optical SETI, Alien Telescope Array, space explorations and fly bys with probes and powerful telescopes.  There are other methods of contact which have been explored, but still nothing.
> 
> The atheist scientists such a Neil deGrasse Tyson and Stephen Hawking still think they exist, but no evidence for them.  Hawking has died not knowing aliens exist like Carl Sagan.  deGrasse Tyson will die without knowing, too, and he says sometimes it keeps him up at night thinking about how science can help find them.  Other top scientists who believed in the possibility of aliens and have died without knowing are Albert Einstein, Nikola Tesla, and Richard Feynman.
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The fact that we are here proves abiogenesis happens
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It also proves God is the creator.  More evidence for God than abiogenesis or aliens because we found a book that explains step-by-step how it happened.  Atheists still have vast universe and top scientists who believe in it, but they have all died without ever knowing aliens or abiogenesis.  Creation scientists and I believe the vast universe demonstrates the beauty, complexity, and glory of God instead.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Please identify where Fermi's Paradox, Drake's Equation, The Great Filter, and your nonsensical “fine tuning facts” presents any evidence for or against alien life.
> 
> Please support your nonsense claim about some “fine tuning” you claim exist. Please supply peer reviewed evidence that a) supports your version of the gods, and then, b) supporting evidence that your gods have a supernatural hand in the workings of the universe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You been supplied with it many times, but just can't get it through the thickness.
> 
> Obviously, it's your side's claim and so need to produce the aliens and evidence of abiogenesis.  That would show the atheist scientists were right and victory is yours.
> 
> Until then, the victory goes to the fine tuning side.  I will give you this as ID has passed peer review just to tweak your nose some more -- https://www.breakpoint.org/intelligent-design-passes-peer-review/.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Firstly, there is no requirement for science to produce aliens. That’s ridiculous.
> 
> Secondly, It is known with absolute certainty that abiogenesis occurred. The fact that life exists on the planet is proof of that. What is not known are the exact mechanisms. Defaulting to “the gawds did it” is pointless and time wasting unless and until one or more of the gods are demonstrated to exist or have existed. Various religions argue (for different reasons) that various gods with / without some human-like will to circumvent biology & physics for their own ends are responsible for existence. Nothing cut and pasted from your creation ministries presents anything other than “canned” propaganda.
> 
> It’s fair to point out that nothing has been presented to support any claim to your version of supernatural gods and nothing to support any claim to your gods magically creating all of existence.
> 
> A rational case can be made such that in order to make a positive difference in science literacy, people should distinguish between superstition / religious belief and the physical sciences.  Notably, such a perspective is absent at the core of the ID’iot creationer movement which claims to find evidence for supernatural  intervention in biology, relegating what its adherents call “natural” and “random” to utter absurdity.
> 
> 
> A link to a Christian ministry does nothing to support your claim to “fine tuning”.
> 
> A link to a Christian ministry does nothing to support your claim to ID’iot creationism
Click to expand...

It is not known with any level of certainty that abiogenesis occurred.  It is however known with absolute certainty that you are delusional


----------



## Soupnazi630

esalla said:


> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are no theories that aliens did not happen.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First, we define aliens as intelligent aliens.  We're not discussing just outer space abiogenesis.  We have Drake's Equation, Fermi's Paradox, The Great Filter, and other arguments against it.  The fine tuning facts prevent abiogenesis, so it becomes a big reason for no aliens.
> 
> Furthermore, the Bible does not state God created aliens nor Jesus died to save aliens.  The hard evidence is none has been found despite SETI, optical SETI, Alien Telescope Array, space explorations and fly bys with probes and powerful telescopes.  There are other methods of contact which have been explored, but still nothing.
> 
> The atheist scientists such a Neil deGrasse Tyson and Stephen Hawking still think they exist, but no evidence for them.  Hawking has died not knowing aliens exist like Carl Sagan.  deGrasse Tyson will die without knowing, too, and he says sometimes it keeps him up at night thinking about how science can help find them.  Other top scientists who believed in the possibility of aliens and have died without knowing are Albert Einstein, Nikola Tesla, and Richard Feynman.
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The fact that we are here proves abiogenesis happens
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It also proves God is the creator.  More evidence for God than abiogenesis or aliens because we found a book that explains step-by-step how it happened.  Atheists still have vast universe and top scientists who believe in it, but they have all died without ever knowing aliens or abiogenesis.  Creation scientists and I believe the vast universe demonstrates the beauty, complexity, and glory of God instead.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Please identify where Fermi's Paradox, Drake's Equation, The Great Filter, and your nonsensical “fine tuning facts” presents any evidence for or against alien life.
> 
> Please support your nonsense claim about some “fine tuning” you claim exist. Please supply peer reviewed evidence that a) supports your version of the gods, and then, b) supporting evidence that your gods have a supernatural hand in the workings of the universe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You been supplied with it many times, but just can't get it through the thickness.
> 
> Obviously, it's your side's claim and so need to produce the aliens and evidence of abiogenesis.  That would show the atheist scientists were right and victory is yours.
> 
> Until then, the victory goes to the fine tuning side.  I will give you this as ID has passed peer review just to tweak your nose some more -- https://www.breakpoint.org/intelligent-design-passes-peer-review/.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hollie believes that species have been observed changing to other species, so she is quite lost in space
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They have been T
> 
> We have seen one species of frog give birth to a whole new species
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually kid the speciation theory takes millions of years.
> 
> You were tripping on a hallucinogenic frog apparently
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is not what you asked little boy.
> 
> You asked a specific question which was answered and in fact speciation typically takes millions of years but there are exceptions called mutations.
> 
> Now go study junior your public school failed you just as it did in the conspiracy threads where you were pwned
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no scientific observation of speciation.  If there is you can play the video and name the new species.
> 
> Grow up, if possible
Click to expand...

You do not understand how it works and are lacking in education boy.

Try a book you need it junior.

Get a clue if you can find out how to think


----------



## Soupnazi630

esalla said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are no theories that aliens did not happen.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First, we define aliens as intelligent aliens.  We're not discussing just outer space abiogenesis.  We have Drake's Equation, Fermi's Paradox, The Great Filter, and other arguments against it.  The fine tuning facts prevent abiogenesis, so it becomes a big reason for no aliens.
> 
> Furthermore, the Bible does not state God created aliens nor Jesus died to save aliens.  The hard evidence is none has been found despite SETI, optical SETI, Alien Telescope Array, space explorations and fly bys with probes and powerful telescopes.  There are other methods of contact which have been explored, but still nothing.
> 
> The atheist scientists such a Neil deGrasse Tyson and Stephen Hawking still think they exist, but no evidence for them.  Hawking has died not knowing aliens exist like Carl Sagan.  deGrasse Tyson will die without knowing, too, and he says sometimes it keeps him up at night thinking about how science can help find them.  Other top scientists who believed in the possibility of aliens and have died without knowing are Albert Einstein, Nikola Tesla, and Richard Feynman.
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The fact that we are here proves abiogenesis happens
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It also proves God is the creator.  More evidence for God than abiogenesis or aliens because we found a book that explains step-by-step how it happened.  Atheists still have vast universe and top scientists who believe in it, but they have all died without ever knowing aliens or abiogenesis.  Creation scientists and I believe the vast universe demonstrates the beauty, complexity, and glory of God instead.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Please identify where Fermi's Paradox, Drake's Equation, The Great Filter, and your nonsensical “fine tuning facts” presents any evidence for or against alien life.
> 
> Please support your nonsense claim about some “fine tuning” you claim exist. Please supply peer reviewed evidence that a) supports your version of the gods, and then, b) supporting evidence that your gods have a supernatural hand in the workings of the universe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You been supplied with it many times, but just can't get it through the thickness.
> 
> Obviously, it's your side's claim and so need to produce the aliens and evidence of abiogenesis.  That would show the atheist scientists were right and victory is yours.
> 
> Until then, the victory goes to the fine tuning side.  I will give you this as ID has passed peer review just to tweak your nose some more -- https://www.breakpoint.org/intelligent-design-passes-peer-review/.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Firstly, there is no requirement for science to produce aliens. That’s ridiculous.
> 
> Secondly, It is known with absolute certainty that abiogenesis occurred. The fact that life exists on the planet is proof of that. What is not known are the exact mechanisms. Defaulting to “the gawds did it” is pointless and time wasting unless and until one or more of the gods are demonstrated to exist or have existed. Various religions argue (for different reasons) that various gods with / without some human-like will to circumvent biology & physics for their own ends are responsible for existence. Nothing cut and pasted from your creation ministries presents anything other than “canned” propaganda.
> 
> It’s fair to point out that nothing has been presented to support any claim to your version of supernatural gods and nothing to support any claim to your gods magically creating all of existence.
> 
> A rational case can be made such that in order to make a positive difference in science literacy, people should distinguish between superstition / religious belief and the physical sciences.  Notably, such a perspective is absent at the core of the ID’iot creationer movement which claims to find evidence for supernatural  intervention in biology, relegating what its adherents call “natural” and “random” to utter absurdity.
> 
> 
> A link to a Christian ministry does nothing to support your claim to “fine tuning”.
> 
> A link to a Christian ministry does nothing to support your claim to ID’iot creationism
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is not known with any level of certainty that abiogenesis occurred.  It is however known with absolute certainty that you are delusional
Click to expand...

Yes it is certian it occurred and you are uneducated


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are no theories that aliens did not happen.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First, we define aliens as intelligent aliens.  We're not discussing just outer space abiogenesis.  We have Drake's Equation, Fermi's Paradox, The Great Filter, and other arguments against it.  The fine tuning facts prevent abiogenesis, so it becomes a big reason for no aliens.
> 
> Furthermore, the Bible does not state God created aliens nor Jesus died to save aliens.  The hard evidence is none has been found despite SETI, optical SETI, Alien Telescope Array, space explorations and fly bys with probes and powerful telescopes.  There are other methods of contact which have been explored, but still nothing.
> 
> The atheist scientists such a Neil deGrasse Tyson and Stephen Hawking still think they exist, but no evidence for them.  Hawking has died not knowing aliens exist like Carl Sagan.  deGrasse Tyson will die without knowing, too, and he says sometimes it keeps him up at night thinking about how science can help find them.  Other top scientists who believed in the possibility of aliens and have died without knowing are Albert Einstein, Nikola Tesla, and Richard Feynman.
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The fact that we are here proves abiogenesis happens
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It also proves God is the creator.  More evidence for God than abiogenesis or aliens because we found a book that explains step-by-step how it happened.  Atheists still have vast universe and top scientists who believe in it, but they have all died without ever knowing aliens or abiogenesis.  Creation scientists and I believe the vast universe demonstrates the beauty, complexity, and glory of God instead.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Please identify where Fermi's Paradox, Drake's Equation, The Great Filter, and your nonsensical “fine tuning facts” presents any evidence for or against alien life.
> 
> Please support your nonsense claim about some “fine tuning” you claim exist. Please supply peer reviewed evidence that a) supports your version of the gods, and then, b) supporting evidence that your gods have a supernatural hand in the workings of the universe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You been supplied with it many times, but just can't get it through the thickness.
> 
> Obviously, it's your side's claim and so need to produce the aliens and evidence of abiogenesis.  That would show the atheist scientists were right and victory is yours.
> 
> Until then, the victory goes to the fine tuning side.  I will give you this as ID has passed peer review just to tweak your nose some more -- https://www.breakpoint.org/intelligent-design-passes-peer-review/.
Click to expand...







						Encyclopedia of American Loons
					

It’s … The Encyclopedia of American loons! Our new and exciting series presenting a representative sample of American loons from A-Z.




					americanloons.blogspot.com
				




Charles “Chuck” Wendell Colson is a Christian leader, cultural commentator, and author of lots of book books, several of which have been recognized with ECPA Christian Book Awards. Colson was a former Special Counsel for President Richard Nixon from 1969 to 1973 and the first member of the Nixon administration to be incarcerated for Watergate-related charges (he was named as one of the Watergate Seven). He was never charged with or convicted of anything related to that, but did plead guilty to obstruction of justice in another case and served seven months of a one-to-three year sentence in Alabama's Maxwell Prison. He is also a Templeton foundation recipient and winner of a number of awards, among them honorary doctorates from you-know-what-kind-of institutions, and the Others Award from the Salvation Army (you might want to look up the list of previous winners here. He's also a member of the Family (more here).

He also maintains several media channels which discuss contemporary issues from an evangelical Christian worldview, his own views usually being conservative interpretation of evangelical Christianity. He zealously opposes same-sex marriage, argues that Darwinism is used to attack Christianity, and that the Enron accounting scandals were a consequence of secularism. He is, in short, a hard-core creationist repeating Discovery Institute lies - claiming Darwinism helped cause forced sterilizations by eugenicists – and a steadfast anti-abortionist, claiming that abortion is the real cause of illegal immigration by creating a labor shortage due to "40 million sacrificed since 1973". He is also a steadfast proponent of the Bible Literacy Project's curriculum “The Bible and Its Influence” for public high school literature courses – a poorly disguised wedge trick.

There is much to choose from in Colson’s career. There is, for instance, his argument that the real causes of terrorism are pornography and abortion, and if only the US restricted the freedom of its citizens some more, terrorism would go away (I mean, the Taliban hates us for our freedom, don’t they? Take it away, and they wouldn’t hate us anymore).

Diagnosis: Deranged wingnut and blind zealot with no aptitude for truth or reason. Still pretty powerful and influential.


----------



## Flash

All the evidence that we have says we are alone in the universe.

If anybody has any evidence to the contrary they haven't produced it yet.

If the universe is finite then there will unique things in it.  Life on earth may be unique.

The universe is a pretty hellish place for life.


----------



## Soupnazi630

Flash said:


> All the evidence that we have says we are alone in the universe.
> 
> If anybody has any evidence to the contrary they haven't produced it yet.
> 
> If the universe is finite then there will unique things in it.  Life on earth may be unique.
> 
> The universe is a pretty hellish place for life.


That is not what all the evidence says.

It is true we have not found evidence of life yet but we are only barely getting a glimpse beyond are own world. What we do know is many many worlds exist beyond are own and we keep finding worlds CAPABLE of supporting life. As it turns out planets hospitable to life are common.

Combined with the math it is likely to the point of being a certainty that life exists on other worlds.


----------



## denmark

Blackrook said:


> But belief in these theories are more wishful thinking than reality.
> 
> The concept that there are an infinite number of parallel universes is poppycock. Even if true, there will never be a way to prove it.
> 
> If extra-terrestrial civilizations existed, we'd know it by now. We've been listening for their radio signals for decades and in all that time we've heard squat.
> 
> The reality is that atheist scientists have pushed belief in these notions because they hate Christianity and want to undermine people's faith in religion.


First of all, scientists are not necessarily atheist, and those that are simply see no evidence for “a God”, whether it’s Christianity’s version or others.

No need for hatred, just head shaking toward ignorant people who want to believe something is true without any reasonable evidence.


----------



## Andylusion

Blackrook said:


> But belief in these theories are more wishful thinking than reality.
> 
> The concept that there are an infinite number of parallel universes is poppycock. Even if true, there will never be a way to prove it.
> 
> If extra-terrestrial civilizations existed, we'd know it by now. We've been listening for their radio signals for decades and in all that time we've heard squat.
> 
> The reality is that atheist scientists have pushed belief in these notions because they hate Christianity and want to undermine people's faith in religion.



What I like about those theories is that it takes vastly more blind faith to believe in them, than Christianity.


----------



## GLASNOST

ReinyDays said:


> You've already stated you're not a Christian ... if you think Christianity is a joke, then you're an atheist ... against monotheism ...


I said *you are joking.* I didn’t say Christianity is a joke. I think Christianity is a hocus-pocus, snake-oil peddling superstition but neither that nor thinking it’s a joke would necessarily make me an atheist ... or against monotheism. You have a primitive understanding of human psychology.



ReinyDays said:


> ... just pointing out things you do believe in whether you admit it or not ... much in science must be believed _trusting_ these matters can be explained ... in religion, no explanation can be expected ...


I am sure that you are capable of achieving many things in life but moving the goal-post and/or taking on this challenge that offers you no chance of success is senseless.


----------



## GLASNOST

Grumblenuts said:


> GLASNOST said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GLASNOST said:
> 
> 
> 
> ..... "Belief = religion". OK, but .....
> A religious person *believes* in God (for example). *"Belief = religion"*
> An Atheist *believes* there is no God.* "Belief = religion"*
> An agnostic *doesn't believe* in anything. *No belief, no religion.*
> 
> 
> 
> Sigh.
> Per Google:
> atheist - "a person who disbelieves *or lacks belief* in the existence of God or gods."
> agnostic -  "a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; *a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief* in God."
> Per logic:
> An agnostic is simply an atheist lacking the balls to admit they're an atheist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'll see your "sigh" and raise you five.
> 
> 1). You have quoted a passage that you do not understand and ...
> 2). You quoted another one that is meant to be a joke but you have no sense of humour.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I love you too, dear.
Click to expand...

That fact won't afford you a "Get Out of Jail Free" card.


----------



## ReinyDays

GLASNOST said:


> I am sure that you are capable of achieving many things in life but moving the goal-post and/or taking on this challenge that offers you no chance of success is senseless.



Thank you for the _ad hominem_ attack ... glad you agree I'm right ... and have nothing else to comment on ...


----------



## GLASNOST

ReinyDays said:


> Thank you for the _ad hominem_ attack ...


I made no "attack" but if that is your interpretation of my comment on your understanding of human psychology then it further supports the comment itself. 


ReinyDays said:


> glad you agree I'm right


If your happiness depends upon me being in agreement with you then you wouldn't be "glad".


ReinyDays said:


> ... and have nothing else to comment on ...


That's unfortunate but it's your choice.


----------



## Grumblenuts

GLASNOST said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GLASNOST said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GLASNOST said:
> 
> 
> 
> ..... "Belief = religion". OK, but .....
> A religious person *believes* in God (for example). *"Belief = religion"*
> An Atheist *believes* there is no God.* "Belief = religion"*
> An agnostic *doesn't believe* in anything. *No belief, no religion.*
> 
> 
> 
> Sigh.
> Per Google:
> atheist - "a person who disbelieves *or lacks belief* in the existence of God or gods."
> agnostic -  "a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; *a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief* in God."
> Per logic:
> An agnostic is simply an atheist lacking the balls to admit they're an atheist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'll see your "sigh" and raise you five.
> 
> 1). You have quoted a passage that you do not understand and ...
> 2). You quoted another one that is meant to be a joke but you have no sense of humour.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I love you too, dear.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That fact won't afford you a "Get Out of Jail Free" card.
Click to expand...

You attack the messenger because you have no logical rebuttal. Get back to me when you've thought about it all for a few more decades..


----------



## xband

Blackrook said:


> But belief in these theories are more wishful thinking than reality.
> 
> The concept that there are an infinite number of parallel universes is poppycock. Even if true, there will never be a way to prove it.
> 
> If extra-terrestrial civilizations existed, we'd know it by now. We've been listening for their radio signals for decades and in all that time we've heard squat.
> 
> The reality is that atheist scientists have pushed belief in these notions because they hate Christianity and want to undermine people's faith in religion.


M-Theory. When one Universe touches another, Big Bang. The smaller Universe is the bangee and larger Universe is the banger. Who thought up this shit?


----------



## GLASNOST

Grumblenuts said:


> You attack the messenger because you have no logical rebuttal.



You have misconstrued the definition which disqualifies you from being *“the messenger”* and by proving (yes, I said *‘proving`*) that you have failed to convey any relevant fact on the subject is all the logic in the world.



Grumblenuts said:


> Get back to me when you've thought about it all for a few more decades.



At more than 70 years of age, I don’t know how many decades you think I should wait before reminding you that you are wrong.


----------



## GLASNOST

xband said:


> M-Theory. When one Universe touches another, Big Bang. The smaller Universe is the bangee and larger Universe is the banger. Who thought up this shit?


Whoever it is (or was) clearly didn't understand the fundamental differences between 'touch' and 'tackle' football.


----------



## Grumblenuts

GLASNOST said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> You attack the messenger because you have no logical rebuttal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have misconstrued the definition which disqualifies you from being *“the messenger”* and by proving (yes, I said *‘proving`*) that you have failed to convey any relevant fact on the subject is all the logic in the world.
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> Get back to me when you've thought about it all for a few more decades.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> At more than 70 years of age, I don’t know how many decades you think I should wait before reminding you that you are wrong.
Click to expand...

Good, so demonstrate that you are 70 by admitting that accusing your interlocutor of "misconstruing" things is simply, in fallacious logic terms, "attacking the messenger" rather than offering any logical alternative. Pull up your big boy pants and try an actual rebuttal.

I directly quoted Google's definitions here:


Grumblenuts said:


> Per Google:
> atheist - "a person who disbelieves *or lacks belief* in the existence of God or gods."
> agnostic - "a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; *a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief* in God."


so, obviously, impossible to "misconstrue." I then bolded a few bits for emphasis and to mimic your style, but it all remains simply the definitions provided.
Only then did I add my own conclusion:


Grumblenuts said:


> Per logic:
> An agnostic is simply an atheist lacking the balls to admit they're an atheist.


which you have not addressed..

I will add that: All agnostics are clearly atheists and vice-versa. There's really no difference other than, as I've said, balls. Atheists are more upfront about *lacking belief*. Agnostics appear to imagine themselves more open minded, inclusive, and tolerant. They're actually not. Agnosticism, on its face, is just an abortion of logic posing as happy compromise.

"a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known" <-- That's enough of a crock right there. 'Nuff said.

But adding to the insult: "a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God." - Wait, let's test this now..

A person who claims no belief in God. - atheist -  √
A person who claims no disbelief in God -  atheist - √
That last, of course, being the logic abortion asserted. In reality, atheists simply claim lack of belief - period - full stop. So no religion, "God", gods, tooth fairies, spirituals, supernaturals, and the like. However, one simply cannot seriously "claim" a double negative. "a person who claims" _{no faith - fine, but}_ "nor disbelief" _whaa? _So we're supposed to believe what about this person? They believe _anything is possible_ while somehow also believing that _knowing some stuff is impossible_.  Can you say cognitive dissonance? I knew you could -  √


----------



## esalla

Soupnazi630 said:


> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are no theories that aliens did not happen.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First, we define aliens as intelligent aliens.  We're not discussing just outer space abiogenesis.  We have Drake's Equation, Fermi's Paradox, The Great Filter, and other arguments against it.  The fine tuning facts prevent abiogenesis, so it becomes a big reason for no aliens.
> 
> Furthermore, the Bible does not state God created aliens nor Jesus died to save aliens.  The hard evidence is none has been found despite SETI, optical SETI, Alien Telescope Array, space explorations and fly bys with probes and powerful telescopes.  There are other methods of contact which have been explored, but still nothing.
> 
> The atheist scientists such a Neil deGrasse Tyson and Stephen Hawking still think they exist, but no evidence for them.  Hawking has died not knowing aliens exist like Carl Sagan.  deGrasse Tyson will die without knowing, too, and he says sometimes it keeps him up at night thinking about how science can help find them.  Other top scientists who believed in the possibility of aliens and have died without knowing are Albert Einstein, Nikola Tesla, and Richard Feynman.
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The fact that we are here proves abiogenesis happens
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It also proves God is the creator.  More evidence for God than abiogenesis or aliens because we found a book that explains step-by-step how it happened.  Atheists still have vast universe and top scientists who believe in it, but they have all died without ever knowing aliens or abiogenesis.  Creation scientists and I believe the vast universe demonstrates the beauty, complexity, and glory of God instead.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Please identify where Fermi's Paradox, Drake's Equation, The Great Filter, and your nonsensical “fine tuning facts” presents any evidence for or against alien life.
> 
> Please support your nonsense claim about some “fine tuning” you claim exist. Please supply peer reviewed evidence that a) supports your version of the gods, and then, b) supporting evidence that your gods have a supernatural hand in the workings of the universe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You been supplied with it many times, but just can't get it through the thickness.
> 
> Obviously, it's your side's claim and so need to produce the aliens and evidence of abiogenesis.  That would show the atheist scientists were right and victory is yours.
> 
> Until then, the victory goes to the fine tuning side.  I will give you this as ID has passed peer review just to tweak your nose some more -- https://www.breakpoint.org/intelligent-design-passes-peer-review/.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hollie believes that species have been observed changing to other species, so she is quite lost in space
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They have been T
> 
> We have seen one species of frog give birth to a whole new species
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually kid the speciation theory takes millions of years.
> 
> You were tripping on a hallucinogenic frog apparently
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is not what you asked little boy.
> 
> You asked a specific question which was answered and in fact speciation typically takes millions of years but there are exceptions called mutations.
> 
> Now go study junior your public school failed you just as it did in the conspiracy threads where you were pwned
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no scientific observation of speciation.  If there is you can play the video and name the new species.
> 
> Grow up, if possible
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You do not understand how it works and are lacking in education boy.
> 
> Try a book you need it junior.
> 
> Get a clue if you can find out how to think
Click to expand...

Take your book kid and name the organism that they created.

You would love to prove me wrong after all.

But you can't because you are a confused simpleton


----------



## esalla

Flash said:


> All the evidence that we have says we are alone in the universe.
> 
> If anybody has any evidence to the contrary they haven't produced it yet.
> 
> If the universe is finite then there will unique things in it.  Life on earth may be unique.
> 
> The universe is a pretty hellish place for life.


What evidence says that we are alone in the universe.

Be descriptive


----------



## esalla

Soupnazi630 said:


> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are no theories that aliens did not happen.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First, we define aliens as intelligent aliens.  We're not discussing just outer space abiogenesis.  We have Drake's Equation, Fermi's Paradox, The Great Filter, and other arguments against it.  The fine tuning facts prevent abiogenesis, so it becomes a big reason for no aliens.
> 
> Furthermore, the Bible does not state God created aliens nor Jesus died to save aliens.  The hard evidence is none has been found despite SETI, optical SETI, Alien Telescope Array, space explorations and fly bys with probes and powerful telescopes.  There are other methods of contact which have been explored, but still nothing.
> 
> The atheist scientists such a Neil deGrasse Tyson and Stephen Hawking still think they exist, but no evidence for them.  Hawking has died not knowing aliens exist like Carl Sagan.  deGrasse Tyson will die without knowing, too, and he says sometimes it keeps him up at night thinking about how science can help find them.  Other top scientists who believed in the possibility of aliens and have died without knowing are Albert Einstein, Nikola Tesla, and Richard Feynman.
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The fact that we are here proves abiogenesis happens
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It also proves God is the creator.  More evidence for God than abiogenesis or aliens because we found a book that explains step-by-step how it happened.  Atheists still have vast universe and top scientists who believe in it, but they have all died without ever knowing aliens or abiogenesis.  Creation scientists and I believe the vast universe demonstrates the beauty, complexity, and glory of God instead.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Please identify where Fermi's Paradox, Drake's Equation, The Great Filter, and your nonsensical “fine tuning facts” presents any evidence for or against alien life.
> 
> Please support your nonsense claim about some “fine tuning” you claim exist. Please supply peer reviewed evidence that a) supports your version of the gods, and then, b) supporting evidence that your gods have a supernatural hand in the workings of the universe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You been supplied with it many times, but just can't get it through the thickness.
> 
> Obviously, it's your side's claim and so need to produce the aliens and evidence of abiogenesis.  That would show the atheist scientists were right and victory is yours.
> 
> Until then, the victory goes to the fine tuning side.  I will give you this as ID has passed peer review just to tweak your nose some more -- https://www.breakpoint.org/intelligent-design-passes-peer-review/.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Firstly, there is no requirement for science to produce aliens. That’s ridiculous.
> 
> Secondly, It is known with absolute certainty that abiogenesis occurred. The fact that life exists on the planet is proof of that. What is not known are the exact mechanisms. Defaulting to “the gawds did it” is pointless and time wasting unless and until one or more of the gods are demonstrated to exist or have existed. Various religions argue (for different reasons) that various gods with / without some human-like will to circumvent biology & physics for their own ends are responsible for existence. Nothing cut and pasted from your creation ministries presents anything other than “canned” propaganda.
> 
> It’s fair to point out that nothing has been presented to support any claim to your version of supernatural gods and nothing to support any claim to your gods magically creating all of existence.
> 
> A rational case can be made such that in order to make a positive difference in science literacy, people should distinguish between superstition / religious belief and the physical sciences.  Notably, such a perspective is absent at the core of the ID’iot creationer movement which claims to find evidence for supernatural  intervention in biology, relegating what its adherents call “natural” and “random” to utter absurdity.
> 
> 
> A link to a Christian ministry does nothing to support your claim to “fine tuning”.
> 
> A link to a Christian ministry does nothing to support your claim to ID’iot creationism
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is not known with any level of certainty that abiogenesis occurred.  It is however known with absolute certainty that you are delusional
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes it is certian it occurred and you are uneducated
Click to expand...

Funny how you can not show the video or even describe what was created.

If you do then I will be wrong, as it stands you are just an uneducated Nazi


----------



## Flash

Soupnazi630 said:


> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> All the evidence that we have says we are alone in the universe.
> 
> If anybody has any evidence to the contrary they haven't produced it yet.
> 
> If the universe is finite then there will unique things in it.  Life on earth may be unique.
> 
> The universe is a pretty hellish place for life.
> 
> 
> 
> That is not what all the evidence says.
> 
> It is true we have not found evidence of life yet but we are only barely getting a glimpse beyond are own world. What we do know is many many worlds exist beyond are own and we keep finding worlds CAPABLE of supporting life. As it turns out planets hospitable to life are common.
> 
> Combined with the math it is likely to the point of being a certainty that life exists on other worlds.
Click to expand...



We have absolutely no evidence that there is life on any place other than earth.  After many decades of serious research we have not been able to turn chemistry into biology in a lab.

The more we learn about earth and the more we learn about the rest of the cosmos the more learn that earth is not like other places.  The universe is very hostile to our understanding of life.

Statistics don't produce life. In order for any statistical probability to be valid we need more than one data point.  We only have one data point.  Until (if ever) we get another data we have absolutely nothing.

We have been brainwashed by 100 years of Science Fiction.  We are absolutely positive life exist elsewhere because we see it on TV and the movies and read about in books.  However, the scientific reality is much different.


----------



## Flash

esalla said:


> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> All the evidence that we have says we are alone in the universe.
> 
> If anybody has any evidence to the contrary they haven't produced it yet.
> 
> If the universe is finite then there will unique things in it.  Life on earth may be unique.
> 
> The universe is a pretty hellish place for life.
> 
> 
> 
> What evidence says that we are alone in the universe.
> 
> Be descriptive
Click to expand...



What evidence says there is life any place other than earth?  Be specific.  (The Star Wars movies don't count).


----------



## esalla

Flash said:


> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> All the evidence that we have says we are alone in the universe.
> 
> If anybody has any evidence to the contrary they haven't produced it yet.
> 
> If the universe is finite then there will unique things in it.  Life on earth may be unique.
> 
> The universe is a pretty hellish place for life.
> 
> 
> 
> That is not what all the evidence says.
> 
> It is true we have not found evidence of life yet but we are only barely getting a glimpse beyond are own world. What we do know is many many worlds exist beyond are own and we keep finding worlds CAPABLE of supporting life. As it turns out planets hospitable to life are common.
> 
> Combined with the math it is likely to the point of being a certainty that life exists on other worlds.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> We have absolutely no evidence that there is life on any place other than earth.  After many decades of serious research we have not been able to turn chemistry into biology in a lab.
> 
> The more we learn about earth and the more we learn about the rest of the cosmos the more learn that earth is not like other places.  The universe is very hostile to our understanding of life.
> 
> Statistics don't produce life. In order for any statistical probability to be valid we need more than one data point.  We only have one data point.  Until (if ever) we get another data we have absolutely nothing.
> 
> We have been brainwashed by 100 years of Science Fiction.  We are absolutely positive life exist elsewhere because we see it on TV and the movies and read about in books.  However, the scientific reality is much different.
Click to expand...

So if you have never seen it, then it can not exist.

Ok kid, babble on


----------



## Soupnazi630

Flash said:


> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> All the evidence that we have says we are alone in the universe.
> 
> If anybody has any evidence to the contrary they haven't produced it yet.
> 
> If the universe is finite then there will unique things in it.  Life on earth may be unique.
> 
> The universe is a pretty hellish place for life.
> 
> 
> 
> That is not what all the evidence says.
> 
> It is true we have not found evidence of life yet but we are only barely getting a glimpse beyond are own world. What we do know is many many worlds exist beyond are own and we keep finding worlds CAPABLE of supporting life. As it turns out planets hospitable to life are common.
> 
> Combined with the math it is likely to the point of being a certainty that life exists on other worlds.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> We have absolutely no evidence that there is life on any place other than earth.  After many decades of serious research we have not been able to turn chemistry into biology in a lab.
> 
> The more we learn about earth and the more we learn about the rest of the cosmos the more learn that earth is not like other places.  The universe is very hostile to our understanding of life.
> 
> Statistics don't produce life. In order for any statistical probability to be valid we need more than one data point.  We only have one data point.  Until (if ever) we get another data we have absolutely nothing.
> 
> We have been brainwashed by 100 years of Science Fiction.  We are absolutely positive life exist elsewhere because we see it on TV and the movies and read about in books.  However, the scientific reality is much different.
Click to expand...

No one ever said statistics prove life 

No one used statistics at all 

We are actually learning thrombosis of what you claim in that many places are very hospitable to life. The sheer number of places dictates that it is overwhelmingly probable


----------



## esalla

Flash said:


> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> All the evidence that we have says we are alone in the universe.
> 
> If anybody has any evidence to the contrary they haven't produced it yet.
> 
> If the universe is finite then there will unique things in it.  Life on earth may be unique.
> 
> The universe is a pretty hellish place for life.
> 
> 
> 
> What evidence says that we are alone in the universe.
> 
> Be descriptive
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What evidence says there is life any place other than earth?  Be specific.  (The Star Wars movies don't count).
Click to expand...

I never said that there was, and if you said that there was no evidence of such I might agree.  What you are saying however is that life can not exist off the earth and it already does, soon it will go farther and evidence of life off the Earth will be obvious, but you will still deny


----------



## esalla

Soupnazi630 said:


> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> All the evidence that we have says we are alone in the universe.
> 
> If anybody has any evidence to the contrary they haven't produced it yet.
> 
> If the universe is finite then there will unique things in it.  Life on earth may be unique.
> 
> The universe is a pretty hellish place for life.
> 
> 
> 
> That is not what all the evidence says.
> 
> It is true we have not found evidence of life yet but we are only barely getting a glimpse beyond are own world. What we do know is many many worlds exist beyond are own and we keep finding worlds CAPABLE of supporting life. As it turns out planets hospitable to life are common.
> 
> Combined with the math it is likely to the point of being a certainty that life exists on other worlds.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> We have absolutely no evidence that there is life on any place other than earth.  After many decades of serious research we have not been able to turn chemistry into biology in a lab.
> 
> The more we learn about earth and the more we learn about the rest of the cosmos the more learn that earth is not like other places.  The universe is very hostile to our understanding of life.
> 
> Statistics don't produce life. In order for any statistical probability to be valid we need more than one data point.  We only have one data point.  Until (if ever) we get another data we have absolutely nothing.
> 
> We have been brainwashed by 100 years of Science Fiction.  We are absolutely positive life exist elsewhere because we see it on TV and the movies and read about in books.  However, the scientific reality is much different.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No one ever said statistics prove life
> 
> No one used statistics at all
> 
> We are actually learning thrombosis of what you claim in that many places are very hospitable to life. The sheer number of places dictates that it is overwhelmingly probable
Click to expand...

Yes Nazi if you say so.................................

You gonna force the kids to fight now?


----------



## Flash

esalla said:


> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> All the evidence that we have says we are alone in the universe.
> 
> If anybody has any evidence to the contrary they haven't produced it yet.
> 
> If the universe is finite then there will unique things in it.  Life on earth may be unique.
> 
> The universe is a pretty hellish place for life.
> 
> 
> 
> That is not what all the evidence says.
> 
> It is true we have not found evidence of life yet but we are only barely getting a glimpse beyond are own world. What we do know is many many worlds exist beyond are own and we keep finding worlds CAPABLE of supporting life. As it turns out planets hospitable to life are common.
> 
> Combined with the math it is likely to the point of being a certainty that life exists on other worlds.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> We have absolutely no evidence that there is life on any place other than earth.  After many decades of serious research we have not been able to turn chemistry into biology in a lab.
> 
> The more we learn about earth and the more we learn about the rest of the cosmos the more learn that earth is not like other places.  The universe is very hostile to our understanding of life.
> 
> Statistics don't produce life. In order for any statistical probability to be valid we need more than one data point.  We only have one data point.  Until (if ever) we get another data we have absolutely nothing.
> 
> We have been brainwashed by 100 years of Science Fiction.  We are absolutely positive life exist elsewhere because we see it on TV and the movies and read about in books.  However, the scientific reality is much different.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So if you have never seen it, then it can not exist.
> 
> Ok kid, babble on
Click to expand...



I have never seen the giant turtle that everybody use to say carried the universe around on its back.  When I see it I will I will believe it.   Just because other people want to believe that the turtle exist don't make it a scientific fact.

We have absolutely no proof of life on anyplace other than earth and we can't produce life in a lab.  That makes life unique to earth until proven otherwise.

Show me the money!


----------



## Likkmee




----------



## Flash

esalla said:


> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> All the evidence that we have says we are alone in the universe.
> 
> If anybody has any evidence to the contrary they haven't produced it yet.
> 
> If the universe is finite then there will unique things in it.  Life on earth may be unique.
> 
> The universe is a pretty hellish place for life.
> 
> 
> 
> What evidence says that we are alone in the universe.
> 
> Be descriptive
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What evidence says there is life any place other than earth?  Be specific.  (The Star Wars movies don't count).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I never said that there was, and if you said that there was no evidence of such I might agree.  What you are saying however is that life can not exist off the earth and it already does, soon it will go farther and evidence of life off the Earth will be obvious, but you will still deny
Click to expand...



Show me the life and I will believe it.  Until then we have nothing but our Science Fiction movies.


----------



## esalla

Flash said:


> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> All the evidence that we have says we are alone in the universe.
> 
> If anybody has any evidence to the contrary they haven't produced it yet.
> 
> If the universe is finite then there will unique things in it.  Life on earth may be unique.
> 
> The universe is a pretty hellish place for life.
> 
> 
> 
> That is not what all the evidence says.
> 
> It is true we have not found evidence of life yet but we are only barely getting a glimpse beyond are own world. What we do know is many many worlds exist beyond are own and we keep finding worlds CAPABLE of supporting life. As it turns out planets hospitable to life are common.
> 
> Combined with the math it is likely to the point of being a certainty that life exists on other worlds.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> We have absolutely no evidence that there is life on any place other than earth.  After many decades of serious research we have not been able to turn chemistry into biology in a lab.
> 
> The more we learn about earth and the more we learn about the rest of the cosmos the more learn that earth is not like other places.  The universe is very hostile to our understanding of life.
> 
> Statistics don't produce life. In order for any statistical probability to be valid we need more than one data point.  We only have one data point.  Until (if ever) we get another data we have absolutely nothing.
> 
> We have been brainwashed by 100 years of Science Fiction.  We are absolutely positive life exist elsewhere because we see it on TV and the movies and read about in books.  However, the scientific reality is much different.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So if you have never seen it, then it can not exist.
> 
> Ok kid, babble on
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I have never seen the giant turtle that everybody use to say carried the universe around on its back.  When I see it I will I will believe it.   Just because other people want to believe that the turtle exist don't make it a scientific fact.
> 
> We have absolutely no proof of life on anyplace other than earth and we can't produce life in a lab.  That makes life unique to earth until proven otherwise.
> 
> Show me the money!
Click to expand...

That does not work because in order to see it one must believe enough to build the way off.  See your ignorance has already killed you and you do not even know.  Have no fear as you have already been left behind


----------



## Soupnazi630

Flash said:


> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> All the evidence that we have says we are alone in the universe.
> 
> If anybody has any evidence to the contrary they haven't produced it yet.
> 
> If the universe is finite then there will unique things in it.  Life on earth may be unique.
> 
> The universe is a pretty hellish place for life.
> 
> 
> 
> That is not what all the evidence says.
> 
> It is true we have not found evidence of life yet but we are only barely getting a glimpse beyond are own world. What we do know is many many worlds exist beyond are own and we keep finding worlds CAPABLE of supporting life. As it turns out planets hospitable to life are common.
> 
> Combined with the math it is likely to the point of being a certainty that life exists on other worlds.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> We have absolutely no evidence that there is life on any place other than earth.  After many decades of serious research we have not been able to turn chemistry into biology in a lab.
> 
> The more we learn about earth and the more we learn about the rest of the cosmos the more learn that earth is not like other places.  The universe is very hostile to our understanding of life.
> 
> Statistics don't produce life. In order for any statistical probability to be valid we need more than one data point.  We only have one data point.  Until (if ever) we get another data we have absolutely nothing.
> 
> We have been brainwashed by 100 years of Science Fiction.  We are absolutely positive life exist elsewhere because we see it on TV and the movies and read about in books.  However, the scientific reality is much different.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So if you have never seen it, then it can not exist.
> 
> Ok kid, babble on
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I have never seen the giant turtle that everybody use to say carried the universe around on its back.  When I see it I will I will believe it.   Just because other people want to believe that the turtle exist don't make it a scientific fact.
> 
> We have absolutely no proof of life on anyplace other than earth and we can't produce life in a lab.  That makes life unique to earth until proven otherwise.
> 
> Show me the money!
Click to expand...

and once again we are only barely becoming to look .


----------



## Soupnazi630

esalla said:


> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> All the evidence that we have says we are alone in the universe.
> 
> If anybody has any evidence to the contrary they haven't produced it yet.
> 
> If the universe is finite then there will unique things in it.  Life on earth may be unique.
> 
> The universe is a pretty hellish place for life.
> 
> 
> 
> That is not what all the evidence says.
> 
> It is true we have not found evidence of life yet but we are only barely getting a glimpse beyond are own world. What we do know is many many worlds exist beyond are own and we keep finding worlds CAPABLE of supporting life. As it turns out planets hospitable to life are common.
> 
> Combined with the math it is likely to the point of being a certainty that life exists on other worlds.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> We have absolutely no evidence that there is life on any place other than earth.  After many decades of serious research we have not been able to turn chemistry into biology in a lab.
> 
> The more we learn about earth and the more we learn about the rest of the cosmos the more learn that earth is not like other places.  The universe is very hostile to our understanding of life.
> 
> Statistics don't produce life. In order for any statistical probability to be valid we need more than one data point.  We only have one data point.  Until (if ever) we get another data we have absolutely nothing.
> 
> We have been brainwashed by 100 years of Science Fiction.  We are absolutely positive life exist elsewhere because we see it on TV and the movies and read about in books.  However, the scientific reality is much different.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No one ever said statistics prove life
> 
> No one used statistics at all
> 
> We are actually learning thrombosis of what you claim in that many places are very hospitable to life. The sheer number of places dictates that it is overwhelmingly probable
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes Nazi if you say so.................................
> 
> You gonna force the kids to fight now?
Click to expand...

Science says so assella


----------



## esalla

Soupnazi630 said:


> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> All the evidence that we have says we are alone in the universe.
> 
> If anybody has any evidence to the contrary they haven't produced it yet.
> 
> If the universe is finite then there will unique things in it.  Life on earth may be unique.
> 
> The universe is a pretty hellish place for life.
> 
> 
> 
> That is not what all the evidence says.
> 
> It is true we have not found evidence of life yet but we are only barely getting a glimpse beyond are own world. What we do know is many many worlds exist beyond are own and we keep finding worlds CAPABLE of supporting life. As it turns out planets hospitable to life are common.
> 
> Combined with the math it is likely to the point of being a certainty that life exists on other worlds.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> We have absolutely no evidence that there is life on any place other than earth.  After many decades of serious research we have not been able to turn chemistry into biology in a lab.
> 
> The more we learn about earth and the more we learn about the rest of the cosmos the more learn that earth is not like other places.  The universe is very hostile to our understanding of life.
> 
> Statistics don't produce life. In order for any statistical probability to be valid we need more than one data point.  We only have one data point.  Until (if ever) we get another data we have absolutely nothing.
> 
> We have been brainwashed by 100 years of Science Fiction.  We are absolutely positive life exist elsewhere because we see it on TV and the movies and read about in books.  However, the scientific reality is much different.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So if you have never seen it, then it can not exist.
> 
> Ok kid, babble on
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I have never seen the giant turtle that everybody use to say carried the universe around on its back.  When I see it I will I will believe it.   Just because other people want to believe that the turtle exist don't make it a scientific fact.
> 
> We have absolutely no proof of life on anyplace other than earth and we can't produce life in a lab.  That makes life unique to earth until proven otherwise.
> 
> Show me the money!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> and once again we are only barely becoming to look .
Click to expand...

Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

Spell checkers are a bitch

Or perhaps the Jews designed them to make Nazis look as dumb as they are


----------



## esalla

Soupnazi630 said:


> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> All the evidence that we have says we are alone in the universe.
> 
> If anybody has any evidence to the contrary they haven't produced it yet.
> 
> If the universe is finite then there will unique things in it.  Life on earth may be unique.
> 
> The universe is a pretty hellish place for life.
> 
> 
> 
> That is not what all the evidence says.
> 
> It is true we have not found evidence of life yet but we are only barely getting a glimpse beyond are own world. What we do know is many many worlds exist beyond are own and we keep finding worlds CAPABLE of supporting life. As it turns out planets hospitable to life are common.
> 
> Combined with the math it is likely to the point of being a certainty that life exists on other worlds.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> We have absolutely no evidence that there is life on any place other than earth.  After many decades of serious research we have not been able to turn chemistry into biology in a lab.
> 
> The more we learn about earth and the more we learn about the rest of the cosmos the more learn that earth is not like other places.  The universe is very hostile to our understanding of life.
> 
> Statistics don't produce life. In order for any statistical probability to be valid we need more than one data point.  We only have one data point.  Until (if ever) we get another data we have absolutely nothing.
> 
> We have been brainwashed by 100 years of Science Fiction.  We are absolutely positive life exist elsewhere because we see it on TV and the movies and read about in books.  However, the scientific reality is much different.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No one ever said statistics prove life
> 
> No one used statistics at all
> 
> We are actually learning thrombosis of what you claim in that many places are very hospitable to life. The sheer number of places dictates that it is overwhelmingly probable
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes Nazi if you say so.................................
> 
> You gonna force the kids to fight now?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Science says so assella
Click to expand...

What does science say?

Clue me in


----------



## Flash

Soupnazi630 said:


> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> All the evidence that we have says we are alone in the universe.
> 
> If anybody has any evidence to the contrary they haven't produced it yet.
> 
> If the universe is finite then there will unique things in it.  Life on earth may be unique.
> 
> The universe is a pretty hellish place for life.
> 
> 
> 
> That is not what all the evidence says.
> 
> It is true we have not found evidence of life yet but we are only barely getting a glimpse beyond are own world. What we do know is many many worlds exist beyond are own and we keep finding worlds CAPABLE of supporting life. As it turns out planets hospitable to life are common.
> 
> Combined with the math it is likely to the point of being a certainty that life exists on other worlds.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> We have absolutely no evidence that there is life on any place other than earth.  After many decades of serious research we have not been able to turn chemistry into biology in a lab.
> 
> The more we learn about earth and the more we learn about the rest of the cosmos the more learn that earth is not like other places.  The universe is very hostile to our understanding of life.
> 
> Statistics don't produce life. In order for any statistical probability to be valid we need more than one data point.  We only have one data point.  Until (if ever) we get another data we have absolutely nothing.
> 
> We have been brainwashed by 100 years of Science Fiction.  We are absolutely positive life exist elsewhere because we see it on TV and the movies and read about in books.  However, the scientific reality is much different.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So if you have never seen it, then it can not exist.
> 
> Ok kid, babble on
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I have never seen the giant turtle that everybody use to say carried the universe around on its back.  When I see it I will I will believe it.   Just because other people want to believe that the turtle exist don't make it a scientific fact.
> 
> We have absolutely no proof of life on anyplace other than earth and we can't produce life in a lab.  That makes life unique to earth until proven otherwise.
> 
> Show me the money!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> and once again we are only barely becoming to look .
Click to expand...



The more we look the more we find out that the universe is hostile to life.

Some people claim that since there are so many stars in the sky there just _has to be_ life elsewhere.

However, for instance, we have recently learned that almost 70% of those stars in the galaxy are cooler red dwarfs and that they are highly variable in energy output.  It is hard to produce life when the temeperature is 70 degrees one day and 370 degrees the next day, isn't it?


----------



## Soupnazi630

Flash said:


> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> All the evidence that we have says we are alone in the universe.
> 
> If anybody has any evidence to the contrary they haven't produced it yet.
> 
> If the universe is finite then there will unique things in it.  Life on earth may be unique.
> 
> The universe is a pretty hellish place for life.
> 
> 
> 
> That is not what all the evidence says.
> 
> It is true we have not found evidence of life yet but we are only barely getting a glimpse beyond are own world. What we do know is many many worlds exist beyond are own and we keep finding worlds CAPABLE of supporting life. As it turns out planets hospitable to life are common.
> 
> Combined with the math it is likely to the point of being a certainty that life exists on other worlds.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> We have absolutely no evidence that there is life on any place other than earth.  After many decades of serious research we have not been able to turn chemistry into biology in a lab.
> 
> The more we learn about earth and the more we learn about the rest of the cosmos the more learn that earth is not like other places.  The universe is very hostile to our understanding of life.
> 
> Statistics don't produce life. In order for any statistical probability to be valid we need more than one data point.  We only have one data point.  Until (if ever) we get another data we have absolutely nothing.
> 
> We have been brainwashed by 100 years of Science Fiction.  We are absolutely positive life exist elsewhere because we see it on TV and the movies and read about in books.  However, the scientific reality is much different.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So if you have never seen it, then it can not exist.
> 
> Ok kid, babble on
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I have never seen the giant turtle that everybody use to say carried the universe around on its back.  When I see it I will I will believe it.   Just because other people want to believe that the turtle exist don't make it a scientific fact.
> 
> We have absolutely no proof of life on anyplace other than earth and we can't produce life in a lab.  That makes life unique to earth until proven otherwise.
> 
> Show me the money!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> and once again we are only barely becoming to look .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The more we look the more we find out that the universe is hostile to life.
> 
> Some people claim that since there are so many stars in the sky there just _has to be_ life elsewhere.
> 
> However, for instance, we have recently learned that almost 70% of those stars in the galaxy are cooler red dwarfs and that they are highly variable in energy output.  It is hard to produce life when the temeperature is 70 degrees one day and 370 degrees the next day, isn't it?
Click to expand...

Quite the opposite 

The more we look the more we find planet after planet hospitable to life


----------



## esalla

Flash said:


> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> All the evidence that we have says we are alone in the universe.
> 
> If anybody has any evidence to the contrary they haven't produced it yet.
> 
> If the universe is finite then there will unique things in it.  Life on earth may be unique.
> 
> The universe is a pretty hellish place for life.
> 
> 
> 
> That is not what all the evidence says.
> 
> It is true we have not found evidence of life yet but we are only barely getting a glimpse beyond are own world. What we do know is many many worlds exist beyond are own and we keep finding worlds CAPABLE of supporting life. As it turns out planets hospitable to life are common.
> 
> Combined with the math it is likely to the point of being a certainty that life exists on other worlds.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> We have absolutely no evidence that there is life on any place other than earth.  After many decades of serious research we have not been able to turn chemistry into biology in a lab.
> 
> The more we learn about earth and the more we learn about the rest of the cosmos the more learn that earth is not like other places.  The universe is very hostile to our understanding of life.
> 
> Statistics don't produce life. In order for any statistical probability to be valid we need more than one data point.  We only have one data point.  Until (if ever) we get another data we have absolutely nothing.
> 
> We have been brainwashed by 100 years of Science Fiction.  We are absolutely positive life exist elsewhere because we see it on TV and the movies and read about in books.  However, the scientific reality is much different.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So if you have never seen it, then it can not exist.
> 
> Ok kid, babble on
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I have never seen the giant turtle that everybody use to say carried the universe around on its back.  When I see it I will I will believe it.   Just because other people want to believe that the turtle exist don't make it a scientific fact.
> 
> We have absolutely no proof of life on anyplace other than earth and we can't produce life in a lab.  That makes life unique to earth until proven otherwise.
> 
> Show me the money!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> and once again we are only barely becoming to look .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The more we look the more we find out that the universe is hostile to life.
> 
> Some people claim that since there are so many stars in the sky there just _has to be_ life elsewhere.
> 
> However, for instance, we have recently learned that almost 70% of those stars in the galaxy are cooler red dwarfs and that they are highly variable in energy output.  It is hard to produce life when the temeperature is 70 degrees one day and 370 degrees the next day, isn't it?
Click to expand...

Actually that is not true as the only places we have looked in the universe for life is within our solar system.  Meaning that 99.9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999  percent has not been looked at.


----------



## Soupnazi630

esalla said:


> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> All the evidence that we have says we are alone in the universe.
> 
> If anybody has any evidence to the contrary they haven't produced it yet.
> 
> If the universe is finite then there will unique things in it.  Life on earth may be unique.
> 
> The universe is a pretty hellish place for life.
> 
> 
> 
> That is not what all the evidence says.
> 
> It is true we have not found evidence of life yet but we are only barely getting a glimpse beyond are own world. What we do know is many many worlds exist beyond are own and we keep finding worlds CAPABLE of supporting life. As it turns out planets hospitable to life are common.
> 
> Combined with the math it is likely to the point of being a certainty that life exists on other worlds.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> We have absolutely no evidence that there is life on any place other than earth.  After many decades of serious research we have not been able to turn chemistry into biology in a lab.
> 
> The more we learn about earth and the more we learn about the rest of the cosmos the more learn that earth is not like other places.  The universe is very hostile to our understanding of life.
> 
> Statistics don't produce life. In order for any statistical probability to be valid we need more than one data point.  We only have one data point.  Until (if ever) we get another data we have absolutely nothing.
> 
> We have been brainwashed by 100 years of Science Fiction.  We are absolutely positive life exist elsewhere because we see it on TV and the movies and read about in books.  However, the scientific reality is much different.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So if you have never seen it, then it can not exist.
> 
> Ok kid, babble on
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I have never seen the giant turtle that everybody use to say carried the universe around on its back.  When I see it I will I will believe it.   Just because other people want to believe that the turtle exist don't make it a scientific fact.
> 
> We have absolutely no proof of life on anyplace other than earth and we can't produce life in a lab.  That makes life unique to earth until proven otherwise.
> 
> Show me the money!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> and once again we are only barely becoming to look .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The more we look the more we find out that the universe is hostile to life.
> 
> Some people claim that since there are so many stars in the sky there just _has to be_ life elsewhere.
> 
> However, for instance, we have recently learned that almost 70% of those stars in the galaxy are cooler red dwarfs and that they are highly variable in energy output.  It is hard to produce life when the temeperature is 70 degrees one day and 370 degrees the next day, isn't it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually that is not true as the only places we have looked in the universe for life is within our solar system.  Meaning that 99.9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999  percent has not been looked at.
Click to expand...


We look for habitable world's and have found many inc!using some in our solar system

With so much unseen it is a near certainty


----------



## esalla

Soupnazi630 said:


> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> All the evidence that we have says we are alone in the universe.
> 
> If anybody has any evidence to the contrary they haven't produced it yet.
> 
> If the universe is finite then there will unique things in it.  Life on earth may be unique.
> 
> The universe is a pretty hellish place for life.
> 
> 
> 
> That is not what all the evidence says.
> 
> It is true we have not found evidence of life yet but we are only barely getting a glimpse beyond are own world. What we do know is many many worlds exist beyond are own and we keep finding worlds CAPABLE of supporting life. As it turns out planets hospitable to life are common.
> 
> Combined with the math it is likely to the point of being a certainty that life exists on other worlds.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> We have absolutely no evidence that there is life on any place other than earth.  After many decades of serious research we have not been able to turn chemistry into biology in a lab.
> 
> The more we learn about earth and the more we learn about the rest of the cosmos the more learn that earth is not like other places.  The universe is very hostile to our understanding of life.
> 
> Statistics don't produce life. In order for any statistical probability to be valid we need more than one data point.  We only have one data point.  Until (if ever) we get another data we have absolutely nothing.
> 
> We have been brainwashed by 100 years of Science Fiction.  We are absolutely positive life exist elsewhere because we see it on TV and the movies and read about in books.  However, the scientific reality is much different.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So if you have never seen it, then it can not exist.
> 
> Ok kid, babble on
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I have never seen the giant turtle that everybody use to say carried the universe around on its back.  When I see it I will I will believe it.   Just because other people want to believe that the turtle exist don't make it a scientific fact.
> 
> We have absolutely no proof of life on anyplace other than earth and we can't produce life in a lab.  That makes life unique to earth until proven otherwise.
> 
> Show me the money!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> and once again we are only barely becoming to look .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The more we look the more we find out that the universe is hostile to life.
> 
> Some people claim that since there are so many stars in the sky there just _has to be_ life elsewhere.
> 
> However, for instance, we have recently learned that almost 70% of those stars in the galaxy are cooler red dwarfs and that they are highly variable in energy output.  It is hard to produce life when the temeperature is 70 degrees one day and 370 degrees the next day, isn't it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually that is not true as the only places we have looked in the universe for life is within our solar system.  Meaning that 99.9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999  percent has not been looked at.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We look for habitable planets and have found many inc!using some in our solar system
> 
> With so much unseen it is a near certainty
Click to expand...

LOL there is only one habitable planet in this solar system, though we might be able to tweak some form of life to live on Mars


----------



## Soupnazi630

Wro


esalla said:


> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> All the evidence that we have says we are alone in the universe.
> 
> If anybody has any evidence to the contrary they haven't produced it yet.
> 
> If the universe is finite then there will unique things in it.  Life on earth may be unique.
> 
> The universe is a pretty hellish place for life.
> 
> 
> 
> That is not what all the evidence says.
> 
> It is true we have not found evidence of life yet but we are only barely getting a glimpse beyond are own world. What we do know is many many worlds exist beyond are own and we keep finding worlds CAPABLE of supporting life. As it turns out planets hospitable to life are common.
> 
> Combined with the math it is likely to the point of being a certainty that life exists on other worlds.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> We have absolutely no evidence that there is life on any place other than earth.  After many decades of serious research we have not been able to turn chemistry into biology in a lab.
> 
> The more we learn about earth and the more we learn about the rest of the cosmos the more learn that earth is not like other places.  The universe is very hostile to our understanding of life.
> 
> Statistics don't produce life. In order for any statistical probability to be valid we need more than one data point.  We only have one data point.  Until (if ever) we get another data we have absolutely nothing.
> 
> We have been brainwashed by 100 years of Science Fiction.  We are absolutely positive life exist elsewhere because we see it on TV and the movies and read about in books.  However, the scientific reality is much different.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So if you have never seen it, then it can not exist.
> 
> Ok kid, babble on
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I have never seen the giant turtle that everybody use to say carried the universe around on its back.  When I see it I will I will believe it.   Just because other people want to believe that the turtle exist don't make it a scientific fact.
> 
> We have absolutely no proof of life on anyplace other than earth and we can't produce life in a lab.  That makes life unique to earth until proven otherwise.
> 
> Show me the money!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> and once again we are only barely becoming to look .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The more we look the more we find out that the universe is hostile to life.
> 
> Some people claim that since there are so many stars in the sky there just _has to be_ life elsewhere.
> 
> However, for instance, we have recently learned that almost 70% of those stars in the galaxy are cooler red dwarfs and that they are highly variable in energy output.  It is hard to produce life when the temeperature is 70 degrees one day and 370 degrees the next day, isn't it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually that is not true as the only places we have looked in the universe for life is within our solar system.  Meaning that 99.9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999  percent has not been looked at.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We look for habitable planets and have found many inc!using some in our solar system
> 
> With so much unseen it is a near certainty
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL there is only one habitable planet in this solar system, though we might be able to tweak some form of life to live on Mars
Click to expand...


Wrong 

There are several 

Get out of moms basement now and then and learn something


----------



## esalla

Soupnazi630 said:


> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> All the evidence that we have says we are alone in the universe.
> 
> If anybody has any evidence to the contrary they haven't produced it yet.
> 
> If the universe is finite then there will unique things in it.  Life on earth may be unique.
> 
> The universe is a pretty hellish place for life.
> 
> 
> 
> That is not what all the evidence says.
> 
> It is true we have not found evidence of life yet but we are only barely getting a glimpse beyond are own world. What we do know is many many worlds exist beyond are own and we keep finding worlds CAPABLE of supporting life. As it turns out planets hospitable to life are common.
> 
> Combined with the math it is likely to the point of being a certainty that life exists on other worlds.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> We have absolutely no evidence that there is life on any place other than earth.  After many decades of serious research we have not been able to turn chemistry into biology in a lab.
> 
> The more we learn about earth and the more we learn about the rest of the cosmos the more learn that earth is not like other places.  The universe is very hostile to our understanding of life.
> 
> Statistics don't produce life. In order for any statistical probability to be valid we need more than one data point.  We only have one data point.  Until (if ever) we get another data we have absolutely nothing.
> 
> We have been brainwashed by 100 years of Science Fiction.  We are absolutely positive life exist elsewhere because we see it on TV and the movies and read about in books.  However, the scientific reality is much different.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So if you have never seen it, then it can not exist.
> 
> Ok kid, babble on
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I have never seen the giant turtle that everybody use to say carried the universe around on its back.  When I see it I will I will believe it.   Just because other people want to believe that the turtle exist don't make it a scientific fact.
> 
> We have absolutely no proof of life on anyplace other than earth and we can't produce life in a lab.  That makes life unique to earth until proven otherwise.
> 
> Show me the money!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> and once again we are only barely becoming to look .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The more we look the more we find out that the universe is hostile to life.
> 
> Some people claim that since there are so many stars in the sky there just _has to be_ life elsewhere.
> 
> However, for instance, we have recently learned that almost 70% of those stars in the galaxy are cooler red dwarfs and that they are highly variable in energy output.  It is hard to produce life when the temeperature is 70 degrees one day and 370 degrees the next day, isn't it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Quite the opposite
> 
> The more we look the more we find planet after planet hospitable to life
Click to expand...

No planet hospitable to life has been found.  Sure I hear the same stuff you do but any of these planets might all be a call of lava with a pure Sulphur atmosphere or have no atmosphere at all.  See all that they can find are possible planets in the zone where life might exist.  If you were there all the planets in this solar system would be close enough for life to exist or so they would seem from hundreds of light years away


----------



## Soupnazi630

esalla said:


> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> All the evidence that we have says we are alone in the universe.
> 
> If anybody has any evidence to the contrary they haven't produced it yet.
> 
> If the universe is finite then there will unique things in it.  Life on earth may be unique.
> 
> The universe is a pretty hellish place for life.
> 
> 
> 
> That is not what all the evidence says.
> 
> It is true we have not found evidence of life yet but we are only barely getting a glimpse beyond are own world. What we do know is many many worlds exist beyond are own and we keep finding worlds CAPABLE of supporting life. As it turns out planets hospitable to life are common.
> 
> Combined with the math it is likely to the point of being a certainty that life exists on other worlds.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> We have absolutely no evidence that there is life on any place other than earth.  After many decades of serious research we have not been able to turn chemistry into biology in a lab.
> 
> The more we learn about earth and the more we learn about the rest of the cosmos the more learn that earth is not like other places.  The universe is very hostile to our understanding of life.
> 
> Statistics don't produce life. In order for any statistical probability to be valid we need more than one data point.  We only have one data point.  Until (if ever) we get another data we have absolutely nothing.
> 
> We have been brainwashed by 100 years of Science Fiction.  We are absolutely positive life exist elsewhere because we see it on TV and the movies and read about in books.  However, the scientific reality is much different.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So if you have never seen it, then it can not exist.
> 
> Ok kid, babble on
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I have never seen the giant turtle that everybody use to say carried the universe around on its back.  When I see it I will I will believe it.   Just because other people want to believe that the turtle exist don't make it a scientific fact.
> 
> We have absolutely no proof of life on anyplace other than earth and we can't produce life in a lab.  That makes life unique to earth until proven otherwise.
> 
> Show me the money!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> and once again we are only barely becoming to look .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The more we look the more we find out that the universe is hostile to life.
> 
> Some people claim that since there are so many stars in the sky there just _has to be_ life elsewhere.
> 
> However, for instance, we have recently learned that almost 70% of those stars in the galaxy are cooler red dwarfs and that they are highly variable in energy output.  It is hard to produce life when the temeperature is 70 degrees one day and 370 degrees the next day, isn't it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Quite the opposite
> 
> The more we look the more we find planet after planet hospitable to life
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No planet hospitable to life has been found.  Sure I hear the same stuff you do but any of these planets might all be a call of lava with a pure Sulphur atmosphere or have no atmosphere at all.  See all that they can find are possible planets in the zone where life might exist.  If you were there all the planets in this solar system would be close enough for life to exist or so they would seem from hundreds of light years away
Click to expand...

wrong 

Many worlds hospitable to life have been discovered and several.right next us.

mars needs no tweaking and is in fact habitable we may in fact have discovered life there and misinterpreted the information 

You are uninformed


----------



## Flash

esalla said:


> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> All the evidence that we have says we are alone in the universe.
> 
> If anybody has any evidence to the contrary they haven't produced it yet.
> 
> If the universe is finite then there will unique things in it.  Life on earth may be unique.
> 
> The universe is a pretty hellish place for life.
> 
> 
> 
> That is not what all the evidence says.
> 
> It is true we have not found evidence of life yet but we are only barely getting a glimpse beyond are own world. What we do know is many many worlds exist beyond are own and we keep finding worlds CAPABLE of supporting life. As it turns out planets hospitable to life are common.
> 
> Combined with the math it is likely to the point of being a certainty that life exists on other worlds.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> We have absolutely no evidence that there is life on any place other than earth.  After many decades of serious research we have not been able to turn chemistry into biology in a lab.
> 
> The more we learn about earth and the more we learn about the rest of the cosmos the more learn that earth is not like other places.  The universe is very hostile to our understanding of life.
> 
> Statistics don't produce life. In order for any statistical probability to be valid we need more than one data point.  We only have one data point.  Until (if ever) we get another data we have absolutely nothing.
> 
> We have been brainwashed by 100 years of Science Fiction.  We are absolutely positive life exist elsewhere because we see it on TV and the movies and read about in books.  However, the scientific reality is much different.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So if you have never seen it, then it can not exist.
> 
> Ok kid, babble on
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I have never seen the giant turtle that everybody use to say carried the universe around on its back.  When I see it I will I will believe it.   Just because other people want to believe that the turtle exist don't make it a scientific fact.
> 
> We have absolutely no proof of life on anyplace other than earth and we can't produce life in a lab.  That makes life unique to earth until proven otherwise.
> 
> Show me the money!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> and once again we are only barely becoming to look .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The more we look the more we find out that the universe is hostile to life.
> 
> Some people claim that since there are so many stars in the sky there just _has to be_ life elsewhere.
> 
> However, for instance, we have recently learned that almost 70% of those stars in the galaxy are cooler red dwarfs and that they are highly variable in energy output.  It is hard to produce life when the temeperature is 70 degrees one day and 370 degrees the next day, isn't it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually that is not true as the only places we have looked in the universe for life is within our solar system.  Meaning that 99.9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999  percent has not been looked at.
Click to expand...


What we do see when we look into the sky is an universe that seems to be hostile to life.  Variable stars where life has no chance of evolving, tremendous life destroying radiation, vast coldness,  extreme chaos.  It goes on and on.

We have absolutely no proof life exist elsewhere.  Until (if ever) it is proven then we have absolutely nothing. Ziltch.  Nada.

Referencing the Star Trek episode where Cpt Kirk screws the green Orion sex slave doesn't count.


----------



## esalla

Soupnazi630 said:


> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> All the evidence that we have says we are alone in the universe.
> 
> If anybody has any evidence to the contrary they haven't produced it yet.
> 
> If the universe is finite then there will unique things in it.  Life on earth may be unique.
> 
> The universe is a pretty hellish place for life.
> 
> 
> 
> That is not what all the evidence says.
> 
> It is true we have not found evidence of life yet but we are only barely getting a glimpse beyond are own world. What we do know is many many worlds exist beyond are own and we keep finding worlds CAPABLE of supporting life. As it turns out planets hospitable to life are common.
> 
> Combined with the math it is likely to the point of being a certainty that life exists on other worlds.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> We have absolutely no evidence that there is life on any place other than earth.  After many decades of serious research we have not been able to turn chemistry into biology in a lab.
> 
> The more we learn about earth and the more we learn about the rest of the cosmos the more learn that earth is not like other places.  The universe is very hostile to our understanding of life.
> 
> Statistics don't produce life. In order for any statistical probability to be valid we need more than one data point.  We only have one data point.  Until (if ever) we get another data we have absolutely nothing.
> 
> We have been brainwashed by 100 years of Science Fiction.  We are absolutely positive life exist elsewhere because we see it on TV and the movies and read about in books.  However, the scientific reality is much different.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So if you have never seen it, then it can not exist.
> 
> Ok kid, babble on
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I have never seen the giant turtle that everybody use to say carried the universe around on its back.  When I see it I will I will believe it.   Just because other people want to believe that the turtle exist don't make it a scientific fact.
> 
> We have absolutely no proof of life on anyplace other than earth and we can't produce life in a lab.  That makes life unique to earth until proven otherwise.
> 
> Show me the money!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> and once again we are only barely becoming to look .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The more we look the more we find out that the universe is hostile to life.
> 
> Some people claim that since there are so many stars in the sky there just _has to be_ life elsewhere.
> 
> However, for instance, we have recently learned that almost 70% of those stars in the galaxy are cooler red dwarfs and that they are highly variable in energy output.  It is hard to produce life when the temeperature is 70 degrees one day and 370 degrees the next day, isn't it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Quite the opposite
> 
> The more we look the more we find planet after planet hospitable to life
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No planet hospitable to life has been found.  Sure I hear the same stuff you do but any of these planets might all be a call of lava with a pure Sulphur atmosphere or have no atmosphere at all.  See all that they can find are possible planets in the zone where life might exist.  If you were there all the planets in this solar system would be close enough for life to exist or so they would seem from hundreds of light years away
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> wrong
> 
> Many worlds hospitable to life have been discovered and several.right next us.
> 
> mars needs no tweaking and is in fact habitable we may in fact have discovered life there and misinterpreted the information
> 
> You are uninformed
Click to expand...

Actually the local Nazi is the uninformed one

But you keep screaming 

No one cares


----------



## Soupnazi630

Flash said:


> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> All the evidence that we have says we are alone in the universe.
> 
> If anybody has any evidence to the contrary they haven't produced it yet.
> 
> If the universe is finite then there will unique things in it.  Life on earth may be unique.
> 
> The universe is a pretty hellish place for life.
> 
> 
> 
> That is not what all the evidence says.
> 
> It is true we have not found evidence of life yet but we are only barely getting a glimpse beyond are own world. What we do know is many many worlds exist beyond are own and we keep finding worlds CAPABLE of supporting life. As it turns out planets hospitable to life are common.
> 
> Combined with the math it is likely to the point of being a certainty that life exists on other worlds.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> We have absolutely no evidence that there is life on any place other than earth.  After many decades of serious research we have not been able to turn chemistry into biology in a lab.
> 
> The more we learn about earth and the more we learn about the rest of the cosmos the more learn that earth is not like other places.  The universe is very hostile to our understanding of life.
> 
> Statistics don't produce life. In order for any statistical probability to be valid we need more than one data point.  We only have one data point.  Until (if ever) we get another data we have absolutely nothing.
> 
> We have been brainwashed by 100 years of Science Fiction.  We are absolutely positive life exist elsewhere because we see it on TV and the movies and read about in books.  However, the scientific reality is much different.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So if you have never seen it, then it can not exist.
> 
> Ok kid, babble on
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I have never seen the giant turtle that everybody use to say carried the universe around on its back.  When I see it I will I will believe it.   Just because other people want to believe that the turtle exist don't make it a scientific fact.
> 
> We have absolutely no proof of life on anyplace other than earth and we can't produce life in a lab.  That makes life unique to earth until proven otherwise.
> 
> Show me the money!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> and once again we are only barely becoming to look .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The more we look the more we find out that the universe is hostile to life.
> 
> Some people claim that since there are so many stars in the sky there just _has to be_ life elsewhere.
> 
> However, for instance, we have recently learned that almost 70% of those stars in the galaxy are cooler red dwarfs and that they are highly variable in energy output.  It is hard to produce life when the temeperature is 70 degrees one day and 370 degrees the next day, isn't it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually that is not true as the only places we have looked in the universe for life is within our solar system.  Meaning that 99.9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999  percent has not been looked at.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What we do see when we look into the sky is an universe that seems to be hostile to life.  Variable stars where life has no chance of evolving, tremendous life destroying radiation, vast coldness,  extreme chaos.  It goes on and on.
> 
> We have absolutely no proof life exist elsewhere.  Until (if ever) it is proven then we have absolutely nothing. Ziltch.  Nada.
> 
> Referencing the Star Trek episode where Cpt Kirk screws the green Orion sex slave doesn't count.
Click to expand...

We see many many worlds where it CAN exist.

The number of such worlds grows every year. We do. It look in empty radiation soaked space between worlds.

yes we have no proof what we have is enormous probability hence we keep looking 

willful ignorance does not count


----------



## Soupnazi630

esalla said:


> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> All the evidence that we have says we are alone in the universe.
> 
> If anybody has any evidence to the contrary they haven't produced it yet.
> 
> If the universe is finite then there will unique things in it.  Life on earth may be unique.
> 
> The universe is a pretty hellish place for life.
> 
> 
> 
> That is not what all the evidence says.
> 
> It is true we have not found evidence of life yet but we are only barely getting a glimpse beyond are own world. What we do know is many many worlds exist beyond are own and we keep finding worlds CAPABLE of supporting life. As it turns out planets hospitable to life are common.
> 
> Combined with the math it is likely to the point of being a certainty that life exists on other worlds.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> We have absolutely no evidence that there is life on any place other than earth.  After many decades of serious research we have not been able to turn chemistry into biology in a lab.
> 
> The more we learn about earth and the more we learn about the rest of the cosmos the more learn that earth is not like other places.  The universe is very hostile to our understanding of life.
> 
> Statistics don't produce life. In order for any statistical probability to be valid we need more than one data point.  We only have one data point.  Until (if ever) we get another data we have absolutely nothing.
> 
> We have been brainwashed by 100 years of Science Fiction.  We are absolutely positive life exist elsewhere because we see it on TV and the movies and read about in books.  However, the scientific reality is much different.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So if you have never seen it, then it can not exist.
> 
> Ok kid, babble on
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I have never seen the giant turtle that everybody use to say carried the universe around on its back.  When I see it I will I will believe it.   Just because other people want to believe that the turtle exist don't make it a scientific fact.
> 
> We have absolutely no proof of life on anyplace other than earth and we can't produce life in a lab.  That makes life unique to earth until proven otherwise.
> 
> Show me the money!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> and once again we are only barely becoming to look .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The more we look the more we find out that the universe is hostile to life.
> 
> Some people claim that since there are so many stars in the sky there just _has to be_ life elsewhere.
> 
> However, for instance, we have recently learned that almost 70% of those stars in the galaxy are cooler red dwarfs and that they are highly variable in energy output.  It is hard to produce life when the temeperature is 70 degrees one day and 370 degrees the next day, isn't it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Quite the opposite
> 
> The more we look the more we find planet after planet hospitable to life
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No planet hospitable to life has been found.  Sure I hear the same stuff you do but any of these planets might all be a call of lava with a pure Sulphur atmosphere or have no atmosphere at all.  See all that they can find are possible planets in the zone where life might exist.  If you were there all the planets in this solar system would be close enough for life to exist or so they would seem from hundreds of light years away
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> wrong
> 
> Many worlds hospitable to life have been discovered and several.right next us.
> 
> mars needs no tweaking and is in fact habitable we may in fact have discovered life there and misinterpreted the information
> 
> You are uninformed
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually the local Nazi is the uninformed one
> 
> But you keep screaming
> 
> No one cares
Click to expand...

there are no such people here 

You are the uniformed one and have it because independently again 

You lack.maturity and education


----------



## esalla

Soupnazi630 said:


> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> All the evidence that we have says we are alone in the universe.
> 
> If anybody has any evidence to the contrary they haven't produced it yet.
> 
> If the universe is finite then there will unique things in it.  Life on earth may be unique.
> 
> The universe is a pretty hellish place for life.
> 
> 
> 
> That is not what all the evidence says.
> 
> It is true we have not found evidence of life yet but we are only barely getting a glimpse beyond are own world. What we do know is many many worlds exist beyond are own and we keep finding worlds CAPABLE of supporting life. As it turns out planets hospitable to life are common.
> 
> Combined with the math it is likely to the point of being a certainty that life exists on other worlds.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> We have absolutely no evidence that there is life on any place other than earth.  After many decades of serious research we have not been able to turn chemistry into biology in a lab.
> 
> The more we learn about earth and the more we learn about the rest of the cosmos the more learn that earth is not like other places.  The universe is very hostile to our understanding of life.
> 
> Statistics don't produce life. In order for any statistical probability to be valid we need more than one data point.  We only have one data point.  Until (if ever) we get another data we have absolutely nothing.
> 
> We have been brainwashed by 100 years of Science Fiction.  We are absolutely positive life exist elsewhere because we see it on TV and the movies and read about in books.  However, the scientific reality is much different.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So if you have never seen it, then it can not exist.
> 
> Ok kid, babble on
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I have never seen the giant turtle that everybody use to say carried the universe around on its back.  When I see it I will I will believe it.   Just because other people want to believe that the turtle exist don't make it a scientific fact.
> 
> We have absolutely no proof of life on anyplace other than earth and we can't produce life in a lab.  That makes life unique to earth until proven otherwise.
> 
> Show me the money!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> and once again we are only barely becoming to look .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The more we look the more we find out that the universe is hostile to life.
> 
> Some people claim that since there are so many stars in the sky there just _has to be_ life elsewhere.
> 
> However, for instance, we have recently learned that almost 70% of those stars in the galaxy are cooler red dwarfs and that they are highly variable in energy output.  It is hard to produce life when the temeperature is 70 degrees one day and 370 degrees the next day, isn't it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually that is not true as the only places we have looked in the universe for life is within our solar system.  Meaning that 99.9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999  percent has not been looked at.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What we do see when we look into the sky is an universe that seems to be hostile to life.  Variable stars where life has no chance of evolving, tremendous life destroying radiation, vast coldness,  extreme chaos.  It goes on and on.
> 
> We have absolutely no proof life exist elsewhere.  Until (if ever) it is proven then we have absolutely nothing. Ziltch.  Nada.
> 
> Referencing the Star Trek episode where Cpt Kirk screws the green Orion sex slave doesn't count.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We see many many worlds where it CAN exist.
> 
> The number of such worlds grows every year. We do. It look in empty radiation soaked space between worlds.
> 
> yes we have no proof what we have is enormous probability hence we keep looking
> 
> willful ignorance does not count
Click to expand...

Nothing about the suitability for life outside of this solar system is known


----------



## Soupnazi630

esalla said:


> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> All the evidence that we have says we are alone in the universe.
> 
> If anybody has any evidence to the contrary they haven't produced it yet.
> 
> If the universe is finite then there will unique things in it.  Life on earth may be unique.
> 
> The universe is a pretty hellish place for life.
> 
> 
> 
> That is not what all the evidence says.
> 
> It is true we have not found evidence of life yet but we are only barely getting a glimpse beyond are own world. What we do know is many many worlds exist beyond are own and we keep finding worlds CAPABLE of supporting life. As it turns out planets hospitable to life are common.
> 
> Combined with the math it is likely to the point of being a certainty that life exists on other worlds.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> We have absolutely no evidence that there is life on any place other than earth.  After many decades of serious research we have not been able to turn chemistry into biology in a lab.
> 
> The more we learn about earth and the more we learn about the rest of the cosmos the more learn that earth is not like other places.  The universe is very hostile to our understanding of life.
> 
> Statistics don't produce life. In order for any statistical probability to be valid we need more than one data point.  We only have one data point.  Until (if ever) we get another data we have absolutely nothing.
> 
> We have been brainwashed by 100 years of Science Fiction.  We are absolutely positive life exist elsewhere because we see it on TV and the movies and read about in books.  However, the scientific reality is much different.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So if you have never seen it, then it can not exist.
> 
> Ok kid, babble on
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I have never seen the giant turtle that everybody use to say carried the universe around on its back.  When I see it I will I will believe it.   Just because other people want to believe that the turtle exist don't make it a scientific fact.
> 
> We have absolutely no proof of life on anyplace other than earth and we can't produce life in a lab.  That makes life unique to earth until proven otherwise.
> 
> Show me the money!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> and once again we are only barely becoming to look .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The more we look the more we find out that the universe is hostile to life.
> 
> Some people claim that since there are so many stars in the sky there just _has to be_ life elsewhere.
> 
> However, for instance, we have recently learned that almost 70% of those stars in the galaxy are cooler red dwarfs and that they are highly variable in energy output.  It is hard to produce life when the temeperature is 70 degrees one day and 370 degrees the next day, isn't it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually that is not true as the only places we have looked in the universe for life is within our solar system.  Meaning that 99.9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999  percent has not been looked at.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What we do see when we look into the sky is an universe that seems to be hostile to life.  Variable stars where life has no chance of evolving, tremendous life destroying radiation, vast coldness,  extreme chaos.  It goes on and on.
> 
> We have absolutely no proof life exist elsewhere.  Until (if ever) it is proven then we have absolutely nothing. Ziltch.  Nada.
> 
> Referencing the Star Trek episode where Cpt Kirk screws the green Orion sex slave doesn't count.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We see many many worlds where it CAN exist.
> 
> The number of such worlds grows every year. We do. It look in empty radiation soaked space between worlds.
> 
> yes we have no proof what we have is enormous probability hence we keep looking
> 
> willful ignorance does not count
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nothing about the suitability for life outside of this solar system is known
Click to expand...

wrong 

we already know there are many exo planets which are very suitable 

we find new ones every year many sharing the same star system


----------



## esalla

Soupnazi630 said:


> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> All the evidence that we have says we are alone in the universe.
> 
> If anybody has any evidence to the contrary they haven't produced it yet.
> 
> If the universe is finite then there will unique things in it.  Life on earth may be unique.
> 
> The universe is a pretty hellish place for life.
> 
> 
> 
> That is not what all the evidence says.
> 
> It is true we have not found evidence of life yet but we are only barely getting a glimpse beyond are own world. What we do know is many many worlds exist beyond are own and we keep finding worlds CAPABLE of supporting life. As it turns out planets hospitable to life are common.
> 
> Combined with the math it is likely to the point of being a certainty that life exists on other worlds.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> We have absolutely no evidence that there is life on any place other than earth.  After many decades of serious research we have not been able to turn chemistry into biology in a lab.
> 
> The more we learn about earth and the more we learn about the rest of the cosmos the more learn that earth is not like other places.  The universe is very hostile to our understanding of life.
> 
> Statistics don't produce life. In order for any statistical probability to be valid we need more than one data point.  We only have one data point.  Until (if ever) we get another data we have absolutely nothing.
> 
> We have been brainwashed by 100 years of Science Fiction.  We are absolutely positive life exist elsewhere because we see it on TV and the movies and read about in books.  However, the scientific reality is much different.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So if you have never seen it, then it can not exist.
> 
> Ok kid, babble on
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I have never seen the giant turtle that everybody use to say carried the universe around on its back.  When I see it I will I will believe it.   Just because other people want to believe that the turtle exist don't make it a scientific fact.
> 
> We have absolutely no proof of life on anyplace other than earth and we can't produce life in a lab.  That makes life unique to earth until proven otherwise.
> 
> Show me the money!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> and once again we are only barely becoming to look .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The more we look the more we find out that the universe is hostile to life.
> 
> Some people claim that since there are so many stars in the sky there just _has to be_ life elsewhere.
> 
> However, for instance, we have recently learned that almost 70% of those stars in the galaxy are cooler red dwarfs and that they are highly variable in energy output.  It is hard to produce life when the temeperature is 70 degrees one day and 370 degrees the next day, isn't it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually that is not true as the only places we have looked in the universe for life is within our solar system.  Meaning that 99.9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999  percent has not been looked at.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What we do see when we look into the sky is an universe that seems to be hostile to life.  Variable stars where life has no chance of evolving, tremendous life destroying radiation, vast coldness,  extreme chaos.  It goes on and on.
> 
> We have absolutely no proof life exist elsewhere.  Until (if ever) it is proven then we have absolutely nothing. Ziltch.  Nada.
> 
> Referencing the Star Trek episode where Cpt Kirk screws the green Orion sex slave doesn't count.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We see many many worlds where it CAN exist.
> 
> The number of such worlds grows every year. We do. It look in empty radiation soaked space between worlds.
> 
> yes we have no proof what we have is enormous probability hence we keep looking
> 
> willful ignorance does not count
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nothing about the suitability for life outside of this solar system is known
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> wrong
> 
> we already know there are many exo planets which are very suitable
> 
> we find new ones every year many sharing the same star system
Click to expand...

You know nothing, all you can do is repeat what you saw on Cosmos like a trained parrot

But carry on

Polly want a cracker


----------



## GLASNOST

Grumblenuts said:


> GLASNOST said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> You attack the messenger because you have no logical rebuttal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have misconstrued the definition which disqualifies you from being *“the messenger”* and by proving (yes, I said *‘proving`*) that you have failed to convey any relevant fact on the subject is all the logic in the world.
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> Get back to me when you've thought about it all for a few more decades.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> At more than 70 years of age, I don’t know how many decades you think I should wait before reminding you that you are wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Good, so demonstrate that you are 70 by admitting that accusing your interlocutor of "misconstruing" things is simply, in fallacious logic terms, "attacking the messenger" rather than offering any logical alternative. Pull up your big boy pants and try an actual rebuttal.
> 
> I directly quoted Google's definitions here:
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> Per Google:
> atheist - "a person who disbelieves *or lacks belief* in the existence of God or gods."
> agnostic - "a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; *a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief* in God."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> so, obviously, impossible to "misconstrue." I then bolded a few bits for emphasis and to mimic your style, but it all remains simply the definitions provided.
> Only then did I add my own conclusion:
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> Per logic:
> An agnostic is simply an atheist lacking the balls to admit they're an atheist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> which you have not addressed..
> 
> I will add that: All agnostics are clearly atheists and vice-versa. There's really no difference other than, as I've said, balls. Atheists are more upfront about *lacking belief*. Agnostics appear to imagine themselves more open minded, inclusive, and tolerant. They're actually not. Agnosticism, on its face, is just an abortion of logic posing as happy compromise.
> 
> "a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known" <-- That's enough of a crock right there. 'Nuff said.
> 
> But adding to the insult: "a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God." - Wait, let's test this now..
> 
> A person who claims no belief in God. - atheist -  √
> A person who claims no disbelief in God -  atheist - √
> That last, of course, being the logic abortion asserted. In reality, atheists simply claim lack of belief - period - full stop. So no religion, "God", gods, tooth fairies, spirituals, supernaturals, and the like. However, one simply cannot seriously "claim" a double negative. "a person who claims" _{no faith - fine, but}_ "nor disbelief" _whaa? _So we're supposed to believe what about this person? They believe _anything is possible_ while somehow also believing that _knowing some stuff is impossible_.  Can you say cognitive dissonance? I knew you could -  √
Click to expand...

 
Let me cut through the crap and get straight to the nitty-gritty. Your whole carousel of nonsense boils down to *a voluntary misconception* you have. You do not understand the difference between *“non-believing”* and *“dis-believing”.* You think they are synonymous and you intentionally resist learning the difference between the two. Here you say …



Grumblenuts said:


> All agnostics are clearly atheists and vice-versa.



Silly, childish nonsense. And yet you continue by saying …



Grumblenuts said:


> … try an actual rebuttal.



You do not display the signs of being mature enough for a rebuttal and you won’t until you can learn what non-belief and dis-belief mean. It is so fundamental and (here’s the beauty of it) once you’ve understood that your problem will be solved and no rebuttal will be necessary. It will all be clear to you.  Crystal clear.


----------



## Soupnazi630

esalla said:


> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> All the evidence that we have says we are alone in the universe.
> 
> If anybody has any evidence to the contrary they haven't produced it yet.
> 
> If the universe is finite then there will unique things in it.  Life on earth may be unique.
> 
> The universe is a pretty hellish place for life.
> 
> 
> 
> That is not what all the evidence says.
> 
> It is true we have not found evidence of life yet but we are only barely getting a glimpse beyond are own world. What we do know is many many worlds exist beyond are own and we keep finding worlds CAPABLE of supporting life. As it turns out planets hospitable to life are common.
> 
> Combined with the math it is likely to the point of being a certainty that life exists on other worlds.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> We have absolutely no evidence that there is life on any place other than earth.  After many decades of serious research we have not been able to turn chemistry into biology in a lab.
> 
> The more we learn about earth and the more we learn about the rest of the cosmos the more learn that earth is not like other places.  The universe is very hostile to our understanding of life.
> 
> Statistics don't produce life. In order for any statistical probability to be valid we need more than one data point.  We only have one data point.  Until (if ever) we get another data we have absolutely nothing.
> 
> We have been brainwashed by 100 years of Science Fiction.  We are absolutely positive life exist elsewhere because we see it on TV and the movies and read about in books.  However, the scientific reality is much different.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So if you have never seen it, then it can not exist.
> 
> Ok kid, babble on
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I have never seen the giant turtle that everybody use to say carried the universe around on its back.  When I see it I will I will believe it.   Just because other people want to believe that the turtle exist don't make it a scientific fact.
> 
> We have absolutely no proof of life on anyplace other than earth and we can't produce life in a lab.  That makes life unique to earth until proven otherwise.
> 
> Show me the money!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> and once again we are only barely becoming to look .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The more we look the more we find out that the universe is hostile to life.
> 
> Some people claim that since there are so many stars in the sky there just _has to be_ life elsewhere.
> 
> However, for instance, we have recently learned that almost 70% of those stars in the galaxy are cooler red dwarfs and that they are highly variable in energy output.  It is hard to produce life when the temeperature is 70 degrees one day and 370 degrees the next day, isn't it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually that is not true as the only places we have looked in the universe for life is within our solar system.  Meaning that 99.9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999  percent has not been looked at.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What we do see when we look into the sky is an universe that seems to be hostile to life.  Variable stars where life has no chance of evolving, tremendous life destroying radiation, vast coldness,  extreme chaos.  It goes on and on.
> 
> We have absolutely no proof life exist elsewhere.  Until (if ever) it is proven then we have absolutely nothing. Ziltch.  Nada.
> 
> Referencing the Star Trek episode where Cpt Kirk screws the green Orion sex slave doesn't count.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We see many many worlds where it CAN exist.
> 
> The number of such worlds grows every year. We do. It look in empty radiation soaked space between worlds.
> 
> yes we have no proof what we have is enormous probability hence we keep looking
> 
> willful ignorance does not count
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nothing about the suitability for life outside of this solar system is known
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> wrong
> 
> we already know there are many exo planets which are very suitable
> 
> we find new ones every year many sharing the same star system
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You know nothing, all you can do is repeat what you saw on Cosmos like a trained parrot
> 
> But carry on
> 
> Polly want a cracker
Click to expand...

As always I know more than you 

Like in the conspiracy threads I crushed you in you strictly and exclusively read what suits your view and ignore everything  else.


----------



## esalla

Soupnazi630 said:


> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> All the evidence that we have says we are alone in the universe.
> 
> If anybody has any evidence to the contrary they haven't produced it yet.
> 
> If the universe is finite then there will unique things in it.  Life on earth may be unique.
> 
> The universe is a pretty hellish place for life.
> 
> 
> 
> That is not what all the evidence says.
> 
> It is true we have not found evidence of life yet but we are only barely getting a glimpse beyond are own world. What we do know is many many worlds exist beyond are own and we keep finding worlds CAPABLE of supporting life. As it turns out planets hospitable to life are common.
> 
> Combined with the math it is likely to the point of being a certainty that life exists on other worlds.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> We have absolutely no evidence that there is life on any place other than earth.  After many decades of serious research we have not been able to turn chemistry into biology in a lab.
> 
> The more we learn about earth and the more we learn about the rest of the cosmos the more learn that earth is not like other places.  The universe is very hostile to our understanding of life.
> 
> Statistics don't produce life. In order for any statistical probability to be valid we need more than one data point.  We only have one data point.  Until (if ever) we get another data we have absolutely nothing.
> 
> We have been brainwashed by 100 years of Science Fiction.  We are absolutely positive life exist elsewhere because we see it on TV and the movies and read about in books.  However, the scientific reality is much different.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So if you have never seen it, then it can not exist.
> 
> Ok kid, babble on
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I have never seen the giant turtle that everybody use to say carried the universe around on its back.  When I see it I will I will believe it.   Just because other people want to believe that the turtle exist don't make it a scientific fact.
> 
> We have absolutely no proof of life on anyplace other than earth and we can't produce life in a lab.  That makes life unique to earth until proven otherwise.
> 
> Show me the money!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> and once again we are only barely becoming to look .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The more we look the more we find out that the universe is hostile to life.
> 
> Some people claim that since there are so many stars in the sky there just _has to be_ life elsewhere.
> 
> However, for instance, we have recently learned that almost 70% of those stars in the galaxy are cooler red dwarfs and that they are highly variable in energy output.  It is hard to produce life when the temeperature is 70 degrees one day and 370 degrees the next day, isn't it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually that is not true as the only places we have looked in the universe for life is within our solar system.  Meaning that 99.9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999  percent has not been looked at.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What we do see when we look into the sky is an universe that seems to be hostile to life.  Variable stars where life has no chance of evolving, tremendous life destroying radiation, vast coldness,  extreme chaos.  It goes on and on.
> 
> We have absolutely no proof life exist elsewhere.  Until (if ever) it is proven then we have absolutely nothing. Ziltch.  Nada.
> 
> Referencing the Star Trek episode where Cpt Kirk screws the green Orion sex slave doesn't count.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We see many many worlds where it CAN exist.
> 
> The number of such worlds grows every year. We do. It look in empty radiation soaked space between worlds.
> 
> yes we have no proof what we have is enormous probability hence we keep looking
> 
> willful ignorance does not count
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nothing about the suitability for life outside of this solar system is known
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> wrong
> 
> we already know there are many exo planets which are very suitable
> 
> we find new ones every year many sharing the same star system
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You know nothing, all you can do is repeat what you saw on Cosmos like a trained parrot
> 
> But carry on
> 
> Polly want a cracker
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As always I know more than you
> 
> Like in the conspiracy threads I crushed you in you strictly and exclusively read what suits your view and ignore everything  else.
Click to expand...

Yes indeed all Nazis know more than me.   Until we meet that is.

I'll drown you in Rabbi urine, I already have volunteers drinking coffee


----------



## Soupnazi630

esalla said:


> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> All the evidence that we have says we are alone in the universe.
> 
> If anybody has any evidence to the contrary they haven't produced it yet.
> 
> If the universe is finite then there will unique things in it.  Life on earth may be unique.
> 
> The universe is a pretty hellish place for life.
> 
> 
> 
> That is not what all the evidence says.
> 
> It is true we have not found evidence of life yet but we are only barely getting a glimpse beyond are own world. What we do know is many many worlds exist beyond are own and we keep finding worlds CAPABLE of supporting life. As it turns out planets hospitable to life are common.
> 
> Combined with the math it is likely to the point of being a certainty that life exists on other worlds.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> We have absolutely no evidence that there is life on any place other than earth.  After many decades of serious research we have not been able to turn chemistry into biology in a lab.
> 
> The more we learn about earth and the more we learn about the rest of the cosmos the more learn that earth is not like other places.  The universe is very hostile to our understanding of life.
> 
> Statistics don't produce life. In order for any statistical probability to be valid we need more than one data point.  We only have one data point.  Until (if ever) we get another data we have absolutely nothing.
> 
> We have been brainwashed by 100 years of Science Fiction.  We are absolutely positive life exist elsewhere because we see it on TV and the movies and read about in books.  However, the scientific reality is much different.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So if you have never seen it, then it can not exist.
> 
> Ok kid, babble on
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I have never seen the giant turtle that everybody use to say carried the universe around on its back.  When I see it I will I will believe it.   Just because other people want to believe that the turtle exist don't make it a scientific fact.
> 
> We have absolutely no proof of life on anyplace other than earth and we can't produce life in a lab.  That makes life unique to earth until proven otherwise.
> 
> Show me the money!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> and once again we are only barely becoming to look .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The more we look the more we find out that the universe is hostile to life.
> 
> Some people claim that since there are so many stars in the sky there just _has to be_ life elsewhere.
> 
> However, for instance, we have recently learned that almost 70% of those stars in the galaxy are cooler red dwarfs and that they are highly variable in energy output.  It is hard to produce life when the temeperature is 70 degrees one day and 370 degrees the next day, isn't it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually that is not true as the only places we have looked in the universe for life is within our solar system.  Meaning that 99.9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999  percent has not been looked at.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What we do see when we look into the sky is an universe that seems to be hostile to life.  Variable stars where life has no chance of evolving, tremendous life destroying radiation, vast coldness,  extreme chaos.  It goes on and on.
> 
> We have absolutely no proof life exist elsewhere.  Until (if ever) it is proven then we have absolutely nothing. Ziltch.  Nada.
> 
> Referencing the Star Trek episode where Cpt Kirk screws the green Orion sex slave doesn't count.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We see many many worlds where it CAN exist.
> 
> The number of such worlds grows every year. We do. It look in empty radiation soaked space between worlds.
> 
> yes we have no proof what we have is enormous probability hence we keep looking
> 
> willful ignorance does not count
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nothing about the suitability for life outside of this solar system is known
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> wrong
> 
> we already know there are many exo planets which are very suitable
> 
> we find new ones every year many sharing the same star system
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You know nothing, all you can do is repeat what you saw on Cosmos like a trained parrot
> 
> But carry on
> 
> Polly want a cracker
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As always I know more than you
> 
> Like in the conspiracy threads I crushed you in you strictly and exclusively read what suits your view and ignore everything  else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes indeed all Nazis know more than me.   Until we meet that is.
> 
> I'll drown you in Rabbi urine, I already have volunteers drinking coffee
Click to expand...

There are no nazis here.

In person or here you are out of your league.

When meeting in person you can onlty whine


----------



## esalla

Soupnazi630 said:


> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> All the evidence that we have says we are alone in the universe.
> 
> If anybody has any evidence to the contrary they haven't produced it yet.
> 
> If the universe is finite then there will unique things in it.  Life on earth may be unique.
> 
> The universe is a pretty hellish place for life.
> 
> 
> 
> That is not what all the evidence says.
> 
> It is true we have not found evidence of life yet but we are only barely getting a glimpse beyond are own world. What we do know is many many worlds exist beyond are own and we keep finding worlds CAPABLE of supporting life. As it turns out planets hospitable to life are common.
> 
> Combined with the math it is likely to the point of being a certainty that life exists on other worlds.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> We have absolutely no evidence that there is life on any place other than earth.  After many decades of serious research we have not been able to turn chemistry into biology in a lab.
> 
> The more we learn about earth and the more we learn about the rest of the cosmos the more learn that earth is not like other places.  The universe is very hostile to our understanding of life.
> 
> Statistics don't produce life. In order for any statistical probability to be valid we need more than one data point.  We only have one data point.  Until (if ever) we get another data we have absolutely nothing.
> 
> We have been brainwashed by 100 years of Science Fiction.  We are absolutely positive life exist elsewhere because we see it on TV and the movies and read about in books.  However, the scientific reality is much different.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So if you have never seen it, then it can not exist.
> 
> Ok kid, babble on
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I have never seen the giant turtle that everybody use to say carried the universe around on its back.  When I see it I will I will believe it.   Just because other people want to believe that the turtle exist don't make it a scientific fact.
> 
> We have absolutely no proof of life on anyplace other than earth and we can't produce life in a lab.  That makes life unique to earth until proven otherwise.
> 
> Show me the money!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> and once again we are only barely becoming to look .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The more we look the more we find out that the universe is hostile to life.
> 
> Some people claim that since there are so many stars in the sky there just _has to be_ life elsewhere.
> 
> However, for instance, we have recently learned that almost 70% of those stars in the galaxy are cooler red dwarfs and that they are highly variable in energy output.  It is hard to produce life when the temeperature is 70 degrees one day and 370 degrees the next day, isn't it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually that is not true as the only places we have looked in the universe for life is within our solar system.  Meaning that 99.9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999  percent has not been looked at.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What we do see when we look into the sky is an universe that seems to be hostile to life.  Variable stars where life has no chance of evolving, tremendous life destroying radiation, vast coldness,  extreme chaos.  It goes on and on.
> 
> We have absolutely no proof life exist elsewhere.  Until (if ever) it is proven then we have absolutely nothing. Ziltch.  Nada.
> 
> Referencing the Star Trek episode where Cpt Kirk screws the green Orion sex slave doesn't count.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We see many many worlds where it CAN exist.
> 
> The number of such worlds grows every year. We do. It look in empty radiation soaked space between worlds.
> 
> yes we have no proof what we have is enormous probability hence we keep looking
> 
> willful ignorance does not count
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nothing about the suitability for life outside of this solar system is known
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> wrong
> 
> we already know there are many exo planets which are very suitable
> 
> we find new ones every year many sharing the same star system
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You know nothing, all you can do is repeat what you saw on Cosmos like a trained parrot
> 
> But carry on
> 
> Polly want a cracker
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As always I know more than you
> 
> Like in the conspiracy threads I crushed you in you strictly and exclusively read what suits your view and ignore everything  else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes indeed all Nazis know more than me.   Until we meet that is.
> 
> I'll drown you in Rabbi urine, I already have volunteers drinking coffee
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There are no nazis here.
> 
> In person or here you are out of your league.
> 
> When meeting in person you can onlty whine
Click to expand...

Says the Nazi.........................................

LOL what is my league?

Since you think you know


----------



## Turtlesoup

Blackrook said:


> But belief in these theories are more wishful thinking than reality.
> 
> The concept that there are an infinite number of parallel universes is poppycock. Even if true, there will never be a way to prove it.
> 
> If extra-terrestrial civilizations existed, we'd know it by now. We've been listening for their radio signals for decades and in all that time we've heard squat.
> 
> The reality is that atheist scientists have pushed belief in these notions because they hate Christianity and want to undermine people's faith in religion.


Oh brother-----------

I'm an atheist...trust me you have no clue what atheists think or want.  And you have no clue what you think.

We know that the universe has life--whether intelligent or not we don't know.

There are billions of solar systems--------the odds of other intelligent life being out there are in its favor more so than earth being the only planet that supposedly does.  We NOW lack the technology and knowledge to see if there is other life----and we are dumbing down so I doubt we will ever know for sure.

Atheist scientists go by facts------which you don't. 

You don't even understand what the frick you believe.

You should start with looking up the word ALIEN AND EXTRA-TERRESTRIAL.  

If your "GOD" existed pumpkin, he would be a AN EXTRA-Terrestrial to this planet.   You ergo believe in EXTRA-terrestrials whether you understand your beliefs or not.


----------



## Soupnazi630

esalla said:


> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> All the evidence that we have says we are alone in the universe.
> 
> If anybody has any evidence to the contrary they haven't produced it yet.
> 
> If the universe is finite then there will unique things in it.  Life on earth may be unique.
> 
> The universe is a pretty hellish place for life.
> 
> 
> 
> That is not what all the evidence says.
> 
> It is true we have not found evidence of life yet but we are only barely getting a glimpse beyond are own world. What we do know is many many worlds exist beyond are own and we keep finding worlds CAPABLE of supporting life. As it turns out planets hospitable to life are common.
> 
> Combined with the math it is likely to the point of being a certainty that life exists on other worlds.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> We have absolutely no evidence that there is life on any place other than earth.  After many decades of serious research we have not been able to turn chemistry into biology in a lab.
> 
> The more we learn about earth and the more we learn about the rest of the cosmos the more learn that earth is not like other places.  The universe is very hostile to our understanding of life.
> 
> Statistics don't produce life. In order for any statistical probability to be valid we need more than one data point.  We only have one data point.  Until (if ever) we get another data we have absolutely nothing.
> 
> We have been brainwashed by 100 years of Science Fiction.  We are absolutely positive life exist elsewhere because we see it on TV and the movies and read about in books.  However, the scientific reality is much different.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So if you have never seen it, then it can not exist.
> 
> Ok kid, babble on
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I have never seen the giant turtle that everybody use to say carried the universe around on its back.  When I see it I will I will believe it.   Just because other people want to believe that the turtle exist don't make it a scientific fact.
> 
> We have absolutely no proof of life on anyplace other than earth and we can't produce life in a lab.  That makes life unique to earth until proven otherwise.
> 
> Show me the money!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> and once again we are only barely becoming to look .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The more we look the more we find out that the universe is hostile to life.
> 
> Some people claim that since there are so many stars in the sky there just _has to be_ life elsewhere.
> 
> However, for instance, we have recently learned that almost 70% of those stars in the galaxy are cooler red dwarfs and that they are highly variable in energy output.  It is hard to produce life when the temeperature is 70 degrees one day and 370 degrees the next day, isn't it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually that is not true as the only places we have looked in the universe for life is within our solar system.  Meaning that 99.9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999  percent has not been looked at.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What we do see when we look into the sky is an universe that seems to be hostile to life.  Variable stars where life has no chance of evolving, tremendous life destroying radiation, vast coldness,  extreme chaos.  It goes on and on.
> 
> We have absolutely no proof life exist elsewhere.  Until (if ever) it is proven then we have absolutely nothing. Ziltch.  Nada.
> 
> Referencing the Star Trek episode where Cpt Kirk screws the green Orion sex slave doesn't count.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We see many many worlds where it CAN exist.
> 
> The number of such worlds grows every year. We do. It look in empty radiation soaked space between worlds.
> 
> yes we have no proof what we have is enormous probability hence we keep looking
> 
> willful ignorance does not count
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nothing about the suitability for life outside of this solar system is known
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> wrong
> 
> we already know there are many exo planets which are very suitable
> 
> we find new ones every year many sharing the same star system
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You know nothing, all you can do is repeat what you saw on Cosmos like a trained parrot
> 
> But carry on
> 
> Polly want a cracker
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As always I know more than you
> 
> Like in the conspiracy threads I crushed you in you strictly and exclusively read what suits your view and ignore everything  else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes indeed all Nazis know more than me.   Until we meet that is.
> 
> I'll drown you in Rabbi urine, I already have volunteers drinking coffee
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There are no nazis here.
> 
> In person or here you are out of your league.
> 
> When meeting in person you can onlty whine
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Says the Nazi.........................................
> 
> LOL what is my league?
> 
> Since you think you know
Click to expand...

No nazi said that and you are lying.

The peewee league.


----------



## esalla

Soupnazi630 said:


> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> All the evidence that we have says we are alone in the universe.
> 
> If anybody has any evidence to the contrary they haven't produced it yet.
> 
> If the universe is finite then there will unique things in it.  Life on earth may be unique.
> 
> The universe is a pretty hellish place for life.
> 
> 
> 
> That is not what all the evidence says.
> 
> It is true we have not found evidence of life yet but we are only barely getting a glimpse beyond are own world. What we do know is many many worlds exist beyond are own and we keep finding worlds CAPABLE of supporting life. As it turns out planets hospitable to life are common.
> 
> Combined with the math it is likely to the point of being a certainty that life exists on other worlds.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> We have absolutely no evidence that there is life on any place other than earth.  After many decades of serious research we have not been able to turn chemistry into biology in a lab.
> 
> The more we learn about earth and the more we learn about the rest of the cosmos the more learn that earth is not like other places.  The universe is very hostile to our understanding of life.
> 
> Statistics don't produce life. In order for any statistical probability to be valid we need more than one data point.  We only have one data point.  Until (if ever) we get another data we have absolutely nothing.
> 
> We have been brainwashed by 100 years of Science Fiction.  We are absolutely positive life exist elsewhere because we see it on TV and the movies and read about in books.  However, the scientific reality is much different.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So if you have never seen it, then it can not exist.
> 
> Ok kid, babble on
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I have never seen the giant turtle that everybody use to say carried the universe around on its back.  When I see it I will I will believe it.   Just because other people want to believe that the turtle exist don't make it a scientific fact.
> 
> We have absolutely no proof of life on anyplace other than earth and we can't produce life in a lab.  That makes life unique to earth until proven otherwise.
> 
> Show me the money!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> and once again we are only barely becoming to look .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The more we look the more we find out that the universe is hostile to life.
> 
> Some people claim that since there are so many stars in the sky there just _has to be_ life elsewhere.
> 
> However, for instance, we have recently learned that almost 70% of those stars in the galaxy are cooler red dwarfs and that they are highly variable in energy output.  It is hard to produce life when the temeperature is 70 degrees one day and 370 degrees the next day, isn't it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually that is not true as the only places we have looked in the universe for life is within our solar system.  Meaning that 99.9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999  percent has not been looked at.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What we do see when we look into the sky is an universe that seems to be hostile to life.  Variable stars where life has no chance of evolving, tremendous life destroying radiation, vast coldness,  extreme chaos.  It goes on and on.
> 
> We have absolutely no proof life exist elsewhere.  Until (if ever) it is proven then we have absolutely nothing. Ziltch.  Nada.
> 
> Referencing the Star Trek episode where Cpt Kirk screws the green Orion sex slave doesn't count.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We see many many worlds where it CAN exist.
> 
> The number of such worlds grows every year. We do. It look in empty radiation soaked space between worlds.
> 
> yes we have no proof what we have is enormous probability hence we keep looking
> 
> willful ignorance does not count
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nothing about the suitability for life outside of this solar system is known
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> wrong
> 
> we already know there are many exo planets which are very suitable
> 
> we find new ones every year many sharing the same star system
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You know nothing, all you can do is repeat what you saw on Cosmos like a trained parrot
> 
> But carry on
> 
> Polly want a cracker
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As always I know more than you
> 
> Like in the conspiracy threads I crushed you in you strictly and exclusively read what suits your view and ignore everything  else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes indeed all Nazis know more than me.   Until we meet that is.
> 
> I'll drown you in Rabbi urine, I already have volunteers drinking coffee
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There are no nazis here.
> 
> In person or here you are out of your league.
> 
> When meeting in person you can onlty whine
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Says the Nazi.........................................
> 
> LOL what is my league?
> 
> Since you think you know
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No nazi said that and you are lying.
> 
> The peewee league.
Click to expand...

Think you wanna go a round in the peewee league?


----------



## Soupnazi630

esalla said:


> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> All the evidence that we have says we are alone in the universe.
> 
> If anybody has any evidence to the contrary they haven't produced it yet.
> 
> If the universe is finite then there will unique things in it.  Life on earth may be unique.
> 
> The universe is a pretty hellish place for life.
> 
> 
> 
> That is not what all the evidence says.
> 
> It is true we have not found evidence of life yet but we are only barely getting a glimpse beyond are own world. What we do know is many many worlds exist beyond are own and we keep finding worlds CAPABLE of supporting life. As it turns out planets hospitable to life are common.
> 
> Combined with the math it is likely to the point of being a certainty that life exists on other worlds.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> We have absolutely no evidence that there is life on any place other than earth.  After many decades of serious research we have not been able to turn chemistry into biology in a lab.
> 
> The more we learn about earth and the more we learn about the rest of the cosmos the more learn that earth is not like other places.  The universe is very hostile to our understanding of life.
> 
> Statistics don't produce life. In order for any statistical probability to be valid we need more than one data point.  We only have one data point.  Until (if ever) we get another data we have absolutely nothing.
> 
> We have been brainwashed by 100 years of Science Fiction.  We are absolutely positive life exist elsewhere because we see it on TV and the movies and read about in books.  However, the scientific reality is much different.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So if you have never seen it, then it can not exist.
> 
> Ok kid, babble on
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I have never seen the giant turtle that everybody use to say carried the universe around on its back.  When I see it I will I will believe it.   Just because other people want to believe that the turtle exist don't make it a scientific fact.
> 
> We have absolutely no proof of life on anyplace other than earth and we can't produce life in a lab.  That makes life unique to earth until proven otherwise.
> 
> Show me the money!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> and once again we are only barely becoming to look .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The more we look the more we find out that the universe is hostile to life.
> 
> Some people claim that since there are so many stars in the sky there just _has to be_ life elsewhere.
> 
> However, for instance, we have recently learned that almost 70% of those stars in the galaxy are cooler red dwarfs and that they are highly variable in energy output.  It is hard to produce life when the temeperature is 70 degrees one day and 370 degrees the next day, isn't it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually that is not true as the only places we have looked in the universe for life is within our solar system.  Meaning that 99.9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999  percent has not been looked at.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What we do see when we look into the sky is an universe that seems to be hostile to life.  Variable stars where life has no chance of evolving, tremendous life destroying radiation, vast coldness,  extreme chaos.  It goes on and on.
> 
> We have absolutely no proof life exist elsewhere.  Until (if ever) it is proven then we have absolutely nothing. Ziltch.  Nada.
> 
> Referencing the Star Trek episode where Cpt Kirk screws the green Orion sex slave doesn't count.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We see many many worlds where it CAN exist.
> 
> The number of such worlds grows every year. We do. It look in empty radiation soaked space between worlds.
> 
> yes we have no proof what we have is enormous probability hence we keep looking
> 
> willful ignorance does not count
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nothing about the suitability for life outside of this solar system is known
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> wrong
> 
> we already know there are many exo planets which are very suitable
> 
> we find new ones every year many sharing the same star system
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You know nothing, all you can do is repeat what you saw on Cosmos like a trained parrot
> 
> But carry on
> 
> Polly want a cracker
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As always I know more than you
> 
> Like in the conspiracy threads I crushed you in you strictly and exclusively read what suits your view and ignore everything  else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes indeed all Nazis know more than me.   Until we meet that is.
> 
> I'll drown you in Rabbi urine, I already have volunteers drinking coffee
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There are no nazis here.
> 
> In person or here you are out of your league.
> 
> When meeting in person you can onlty whine
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Says the Nazi.........................................
> 
> LOL what is my league?
> 
> Since you think you know
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No nazi said that and you are lying.
> 
> The peewee league.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Think you wanna go a round in the peewee league?
Click to expand...

Already did you lost


----------



## esalla

Soupnazi630 said:


> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> All the evidence that we have says we are alone in the universe.
> 
> If anybody has any evidence to the contrary they haven't produced it yet.
> 
> If the universe is finite then there will unique things in it.  Life on earth may be unique.
> 
> The universe is a pretty hellish place for life.
> 
> 
> 
> That is not what all the evidence says.
> 
> It is true we have not found evidence of life yet but we are only barely getting a glimpse beyond are own world. What we do know is many many worlds exist beyond are own and we keep finding worlds CAPABLE of supporting life. As it turns out planets hospitable to life are common.
> 
> Combined with the math it is likely to the point of being a certainty that life exists on other worlds.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> We have absolutely no evidence that there is life on any place other than earth.  After many decades of serious research we have not been able to turn chemistry into biology in a lab.
> 
> The more we learn about earth and the more we learn about the rest of the cosmos the more learn that earth is not like other places.  The universe is very hostile to our understanding of life.
> 
> Statistics don't produce life. In order for any statistical probability to be valid we need more than one data point.  We only have one data point.  Until (if ever) we get another data we have absolutely nothing.
> 
> We have been brainwashed by 100 years of Science Fiction.  We are absolutely positive life exist elsewhere because we see it on TV and the movies and read about in books.  However, the scientific reality is much different.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So if you have never seen it, then it can not exist.
> 
> Ok kid, babble on
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I have never seen the giant turtle that everybody use to say carried the universe around on its back.  When I see it I will I will believe it.   Just because other people want to believe that the turtle exist don't make it a scientific fact.
> 
> We have absolutely no proof of life on anyplace other than earth and we can't produce life in a lab.  That makes life unique to earth until proven otherwise.
> 
> Show me the money!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> and once again we are only barely becoming to look .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The more we look the more we find out that the universe is hostile to life.
> 
> Some people claim that since there are so many stars in the sky there just _has to be_ life elsewhere.
> 
> However, for instance, we have recently learned that almost 70% of those stars in the galaxy are cooler red dwarfs and that they are highly variable in energy output.  It is hard to produce life when the temeperature is 70 degrees one day and 370 degrees the next day, isn't it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually that is not true as the only places we have looked in the universe for life is within our solar system.  Meaning that 99.9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999  percent has not been looked at.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What we do see when we look into the sky is an universe that seems to be hostile to life.  Variable stars where life has no chance of evolving, tremendous life destroying radiation, vast coldness,  extreme chaos.  It goes on and on.
> 
> We have absolutely no proof life exist elsewhere.  Until (if ever) it is proven then we have absolutely nothing. Ziltch.  Nada.
> 
> Referencing the Star Trek episode where Cpt Kirk screws the green Orion sex slave doesn't count.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We see many many worlds where it CAN exist.
> 
> The number of such worlds grows every year. We do. It look in empty radiation soaked space between worlds.
> 
> yes we have no proof what we have is enormous probability hence we keep looking
> 
> willful ignorance does not count
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nothing about the suitability for life outside of this solar system is known
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> wrong
> 
> we already know there are many exo planets which are very suitable
> 
> we find new ones every year many sharing the same star system
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You know nothing, all you can do is repeat what you saw on Cosmos like a trained parrot
> 
> But carry on
> 
> Polly want a cracker
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As always I know more than you
> 
> Like in the conspiracy threads I crushed you in you strictly and exclusively read what suits your view and ignore everything  else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes indeed all Nazis know more than me.   Until we meet that is.
> 
> I'll drown you in Rabbi urine, I already have volunteers drinking coffee
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There are no nazis here.
> 
> In person or here you are out of your league.
> 
> When meeting in person you can onlty whine
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Says the Nazi.........................................
> 
> LOL what is my league?
> 
> Since you think you know
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No nazi said that and you are lying.
> 
> The peewee league.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Think you wanna go a round in the peewee league?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Already did you lost
Click to expand...

Nah Apple, Google and Netflix are way up.

But you stay there and blame your ignorance on the Jews

You know like the obedient Nazi that you are


----------



## harmonica

Blackrook said:


> But belief in these theories are more wishful thinking than reality.
> 
> The concept that there are an infinite number of parallel universes is poppycock. Even if true, there will never be a way to prove it.
> 
> If extra-terrestrial civilizations existed, we'd know it by now. We've been listening for their radio signals for decades and in all that time we've heard squat.
> 
> The reality is that atheist scientists have pushed belief in these notions because they hate Christianity and want to undermine people's faith in religion.


the only wishful thinking/etc is Christians for a god ..without a god, christians are scared/etc


----------



## Soupnazi630

esalla said:


> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> All the evidence that we have says we are alone in the universe.
> 
> If anybody has any evidence to the contrary they haven't produced it yet.
> 
> If the universe is finite then there will unique things in it.  Life on earth may be unique.
> 
> The universe is a pretty hellish place for life.
> 
> 
> 
> That is not what all the evidence says.
> 
> It is true we have not found evidence of life yet but we are only barely getting a glimpse beyond are own world. What we do know is many many worlds exist beyond are own and we keep finding worlds CAPABLE of supporting life. As it turns out planets hospitable to life are common.
> 
> Combined with the math it is likely to the point of being a certainty that life exists on other worlds.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> We have absolutely no evidence that there is life on any place other than earth.  After many decades of serious research we have not been able to turn chemistry into biology in a lab.
> 
> The more we learn about earth and the more we learn about the rest of the cosmos the more learn that earth is not like other places.  The universe is very hostile to our understanding of life.
> 
> Statistics don't produce life. In order for any statistical probability to be valid we need more than one data point.  We only have one data point.  Until (if ever) we get another data we have absolutely nothing.
> 
> We have been brainwashed by 100 years of Science Fiction.  We are absolutely positive life exist elsewhere because we see it on TV and the movies and read about in books.  However, the scientific reality is much different.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So if you have never seen it, then it can not exist.
> 
> Ok kid, babble on
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I have never seen the giant turtle that everybody use to say carried the universe around on its back.  When I see it I will I will believe it.   Just because other people want to believe that the turtle exist don't make it a scientific fact.
> 
> We have absolutely no proof of life on anyplace other than earth and we can't produce life in a lab.  That makes life unique to earth until proven otherwise.
> 
> Show me the money!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> and once again we are only barely becoming to look .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The more we look the more we find out that the universe is hostile to life.
> 
> Some people claim that since there are so many stars in the sky there just _has to be_ life elsewhere.
> 
> However, for instance, we have recently learned that almost 70% of those stars in the galaxy are cooler red dwarfs and that they are highly variable in energy output.  It is hard to produce life when the temeperature is 70 degrees one day and 370 degrees the next day, isn't it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually that is not true as the only places we have looked in the universe for life is within our solar system.  Meaning that 99.9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999  percent has not been looked at.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What we do see when we look into the sky is an universe that seems to be hostile to life.  Variable stars where life has no chance of evolving, tremendous life destroying radiation, vast coldness,  extreme chaos.  It goes on and on.
> 
> We have absolutely no proof life exist elsewhere.  Until (if ever) it is proven then we have absolutely nothing. Ziltch.  Nada.
> 
> Referencing the Star Trek episode where Cpt Kirk screws the green Orion sex slave doesn't count.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We see many many worlds where it CAN exist.
> 
> The number of such worlds grows every year. We do. It look in empty radiation soaked space between worlds.
> 
> yes we have no proof what we have is enormous probability hence we keep looking
> 
> willful ignorance does not count
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nothing about the suitability for life outside of this solar system is known
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> wrong
> 
> we already know there are many exo planets which are very suitable
> 
> we find new ones every year many sharing the same star system
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You know nothing, all you can do is repeat what you saw on Cosmos like a trained parrot
> 
> But carry on
> 
> Polly want a cracker
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As always I know more than you
> 
> Like in the conspiracy threads I crushed you in you strictly and exclusively read what suits your view and ignore everything  else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes indeed all Nazis know more than me.   Until we meet that is.
> 
> I'll drown you in Rabbi urine, I already have volunteers drinking coffee
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There are no nazis here.
> 
> In person or here you are out of your league.
> 
> When meeting in person you can onlty whine
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Says the Nazi.........................................
> 
> LOL what is my league?
> 
> Since you think you know
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No nazi said that and you are lying.
> 
> The peewee league.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Think you wanna go a round in the peewee league?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Already did you lost
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nah Apple, Google and Netflix are way up.
> 
> But you stay there and blame your ignorance on the Jews
> 
> You know like the obedient Nazi that you are
Click to expand...

You are the only proven and self admitted nazi here
I am less ignorant than you. Unlike you i learn so I can become less ignorant you revel in your ignorance and stupdiity


----------



## esalla

Soupnazi630 said:


> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> All the evidence that we have says we are alone in the universe.
> 
> If anybody has any evidence to the contrary they haven't produced it yet.
> 
> If the universe is finite then there will unique things in it.  Life on earth may be unique.
> 
> The universe is a pretty hellish place for life.
> 
> 
> 
> That is not what all the evidence says.
> 
> It is true we have not found evidence of life yet but we are only barely getting a glimpse beyond are own world. What we do know is many many worlds exist beyond are own and we keep finding worlds CAPABLE of supporting life. As it turns out planets hospitable to life are common.
> 
> Combined with the math it is likely to the point of being a certainty that life exists on other worlds.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> We have absolutely no evidence that there is life on any place other than earth.  After many decades of serious research we have not been able to turn chemistry into biology in a lab.
> 
> The more we learn about earth and the more we learn about the rest of the cosmos the more learn that earth is not like other places.  The universe is very hostile to our understanding of life.
> 
> Statistics don't produce life. In order for any statistical probability to be valid we need more than one data point.  We only have one data point.  Until (if ever) we get another data we have absolutely nothing.
> 
> We have been brainwashed by 100 years of Science Fiction.  We are absolutely positive life exist elsewhere because we see it on TV and the movies and read about in books.  However, the scientific reality is much different.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So if you have never seen it, then it can not exist.
> 
> Ok kid, babble on
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I have never seen the giant turtle that everybody use to say carried the universe around on its back.  When I see it I will I will believe it.   Just because other people want to believe that the turtle exist don't make it a scientific fact.
> 
> We have absolutely no proof of life on anyplace other than earth and we can't produce life in a lab.  That makes life unique to earth until proven otherwise.
> 
> Show me the money!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> and once again we are only barely becoming to look .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The more we look the more we find out that the universe is hostile to life.
> 
> Some people claim that since there are so many stars in the sky there just _has to be_ life elsewhere.
> 
> However, for instance, we have recently learned that almost 70% of those stars in the galaxy are cooler red dwarfs and that they are highly variable in energy output.  It is hard to produce life when the temeperature is 70 degrees one day and 370 degrees the next day, isn't it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually that is not true as the only places we have looked in the universe for life is within our solar system.  Meaning that 99.9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999  percent has not been looked at.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What we do see when we look into the sky is an universe that seems to be hostile to life.  Variable stars where life has no chance of evolving, tremendous life destroying radiation, vast coldness,  extreme chaos.  It goes on and on.
> 
> We have absolutely no proof life exist elsewhere.  Until (if ever) it is proven then we have absolutely nothing. Ziltch.  Nada.
> 
> Referencing the Star Trek episode where Cpt Kirk screws the green Orion sex slave doesn't count.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We see many many worlds where it CAN exist.
> 
> The number of such worlds grows every year. We do. It look in empty radiation soaked space between worlds.
> 
> yes we have no proof what we have is enormous probability hence we keep looking
> 
> willful ignorance does not count
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nothing about the suitability for life outside of this solar system is known
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> wrong
> 
> we already know there are many exo planets which are very suitable
> 
> we find new ones every year many sharing the same star system
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You know nothing, all you can do is repeat what you saw on Cosmos like a trained parrot
> 
> But carry on
> 
> Polly want a cracker
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As always I know more than you
> 
> Like in the conspiracy threads I crushed you in you strictly and exclusively read what suits your view and ignore everything  else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes indeed all Nazis know more than me.   Until we meet that is.
> 
> I'll drown you in Rabbi urine, I already have volunteers drinking coffee
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There are no nazis here.
> 
> In person or here you are out of your league.
> 
> When meeting in person you can onlty whine
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Says the Nazi.........................................
> 
> LOL what is my league?
> 
> Since you think you know
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No nazi said that and you are lying.
> 
> The peewee league.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Think you wanna go a round in the peewee league?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Already did you lost
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nah Apple, Google and Netflix are way up.
> 
> But you stay there and blame your ignorance on the Jews
> 
> You know like the obedient Nazi that you are
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are the only proven and self admitted nazi here
> I am less ignorant than you. Unlike you i learn so I can become less ignorant you revel in your ignorance and stupdiity
Click to expand...

Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

You ask your Mother for help with that?

Is it fun hating Jews so much that you name yourself Nazi?

Enjoy that hate, it's hardening your arteries now


----------



## Soupnazi630

esalla said:


> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> All the evidence that we have says we are alone in the universe.
> 
> If anybody has any evidence to the contrary they haven't produced it yet.
> 
> If the universe is finite then there will unique things in it.  Life on earth may be unique.
> 
> The universe is a pretty hellish place for life.
> 
> 
> 
> That is not what all the evidence says.
> 
> It is true we have not found evidence of life yet but we are only barely getting a glimpse beyond are own world. What we do know is many many worlds exist beyond are own and we keep finding worlds CAPABLE of supporting life. As it turns out planets hospitable to life are common.
> 
> Combined with the math it is likely to the point of being a certainty that life exists on other worlds.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> We have absolutely no evidence that there is life on any place other than earth.  After many decades of serious research we have not been able to turn chemistry into biology in a lab.
> 
> The more we learn about earth and the more we learn about the rest of the cosmos the more learn that earth is not like other places.  The universe is very hostile to our understanding of life.
> 
> Statistics don't produce life. In order for any statistical probability to be valid we need more than one data point.  We only have one data point.  Until (if ever) we get another data we have absolutely nothing.
> 
> We have been brainwashed by 100 years of Science Fiction.  We are absolutely positive life exist elsewhere because we see it on TV and the movies and read about in books.  However, the scientific reality is much different.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So if you have never seen it, then it can not exist.
> 
> Ok kid, babble on
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I have never seen the giant turtle that everybody use to say carried the universe around on its back.  When I see it I will I will believe it.   Just because other people want to believe that the turtle exist don't make it a scientific fact.
> 
> We have absolutely no proof of life on anyplace other than earth and we can't produce life in a lab.  That makes life unique to earth until proven otherwise.
> 
> Show me the money!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> and once again we are only barely becoming to look .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The more we look the more we find out that the universe is hostile to life.
> 
> Some people claim that since there are so many stars in the sky there just _has to be_ life elsewhere.
> 
> However, for instance, we have recently learned that almost 70% of those stars in the galaxy are cooler red dwarfs and that they are highly variable in energy output.  It is hard to produce life when the temeperature is 70 degrees one day and 370 degrees the next day, isn't it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually that is not true as the only places we have looked in the universe for life is within our solar system.  Meaning that 99.9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999  percent has not been looked at.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What we do see when we look into the sky is an universe that seems to be hostile to life.  Variable stars where life has no chance of evolving, tremendous life destroying radiation, vast coldness,  extreme chaos.  It goes on and on.
> 
> We have absolutely no proof life exist elsewhere.  Until (if ever) it is proven then we have absolutely nothing. Ziltch.  Nada.
> 
> Referencing the Star Trek episode where Cpt Kirk screws the green Orion sex slave doesn't count.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We see many many worlds where it CAN exist.
> 
> The number of such worlds grows every year. We do. It look in empty radiation soaked space between worlds.
> 
> yes we have no proof what we have is enormous probability hence we keep looking
> 
> willful ignorance does not count
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nothing about the suitability for life outside of this solar system is known
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> wrong
> 
> we already know there are many exo planets which are very suitable
> 
> we find new ones every year many sharing the same star system
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You know nothing, all you can do is repeat what you saw on Cosmos like a trained parrot
> 
> But carry on
> 
> Polly want a cracker
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As always I know more than you
> 
> Like in the conspiracy threads I crushed you in you strictly and exclusively read what suits your view and ignore everything  else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes indeed all Nazis know more than me.   Until we meet that is.
> 
> I'll drown you in Rabbi urine, I already have volunteers drinking coffee
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There are no nazis here.
> 
> In person or here you are out of your league.
> 
> When meeting in person you can onlty whine
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Says the Nazi.........................................
> 
> LOL what is my league?
> 
> Since you think you know
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No nazi said that and you are lying.
> 
> The peewee league.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Think you wanna go a round in the peewee league?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Already did you lost
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nah Apple, Google and Netflix are way up.
> 
> But you stay there and blame your ignorance on the Jews
> 
> You know like the obedient Nazi that you are
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are the only proven and self admitted nazi here
> I am less ignorant than you. Unlike you i learn so I can become less ignorant you revel in your ignorance and stupdiity
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
> 
> You ask your Mother for help with that?
> 
> Is it fun hating Jews so much that you name yourself Nazi?
> 
> Enjoy that hate, it's hardening your arteries now
Click to expand...

I never named myself that but you openly admitted to it

Yoiu are the only sewlf proclaimed anti semetic here.

I do not live in my moms basement like you kid


----------



## esalla

Soupnazi630 said:


> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> All the evidence that we have says we are alone in the universe.
> 
> If anybody has any evidence to the contrary they haven't produced it yet.
> 
> If the universe is finite then there will unique things in it.  Life on earth may be unique.
> 
> The universe is a pretty hellish place for life.
> 
> 
> 
> That is not what all the evidence says.
> 
> It is true we have not found evidence of life yet but we are only barely getting a glimpse beyond are own world. What we do know is many many worlds exist beyond are own and we keep finding worlds CAPABLE of supporting life. As it turns out planets hospitable to life are common.
> 
> Combined with the math it is likely to the point of being a certainty that life exists on other worlds.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> We have absolutely no evidence that there is life on any place other than earth.  After many decades of serious research we have not been able to turn chemistry into biology in a lab.
> 
> The more we learn about earth and the more we learn about the rest of the cosmos the more learn that earth is not like other places.  The universe is very hostile to our understanding of life.
> 
> Statistics don't produce life. In order for any statistical probability to be valid we need more than one data point.  We only have one data point.  Until (if ever) we get another data we have absolutely nothing.
> 
> We have been brainwashed by 100 years of Science Fiction.  We are absolutely positive life exist elsewhere because we see it on TV and the movies and read about in books.  However, the scientific reality is much different.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So if you have never seen it, then it can not exist.
> 
> Ok kid, babble on
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I have never seen the giant turtle that everybody use to say carried the universe around on its back.  When I see it I will I will believe it.   Just because other people want to believe that the turtle exist don't make it a scientific fact.
> 
> We have absolutely no proof of life on anyplace other than earth and we can't produce life in a lab.  That makes life unique to earth until proven otherwise.
> 
> Show me the money!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> and once again we are only barely becoming to look .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The more we look the more we find out that the universe is hostile to life.
> 
> Some people claim that since there are so many stars in the sky there just _has to be_ life elsewhere.
> 
> However, for instance, we have recently learned that almost 70% of those stars in the galaxy are cooler red dwarfs and that they are highly variable in energy output.  It is hard to produce life when the temeperature is 70 degrees one day and 370 degrees the next day, isn't it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually that is not true as the only places we have looked in the universe for life is within our solar system.  Meaning that 99.9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999  percent has not been looked at.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What we do see when we look into the sky is an universe that seems to be hostile to life.  Variable stars where life has no chance of evolving, tremendous life destroying radiation, vast coldness,  extreme chaos.  It goes on and on.
> 
> We have absolutely no proof life exist elsewhere.  Until (if ever) it is proven then we have absolutely nothing. Ziltch.  Nada.
> 
> Referencing the Star Trek episode where Cpt Kirk screws the green Orion sex slave doesn't count.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We see many many worlds where it CAN exist.
> 
> The number of such worlds grows every year. We do. It look in empty radiation soaked space between worlds.
> 
> yes we have no proof what we have is enormous probability hence we keep looking
> 
> willful ignorance does not count
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nothing about the suitability for life outside of this solar system is known
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> wrong
> 
> we already know there are many exo planets which are very suitable
> 
> we find new ones every year many sharing the same star system
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You know nothing, all you can do is repeat what you saw on Cosmos like a trained parrot
> 
> But carry on
> 
> Polly want a cracker
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As always I know more than you
> 
> Like in the conspiracy threads I crushed you in you strictly and exclusively read what suits your view and ignore everything  else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes indeed all Nazis know more than me.   Until we meet that is.
> 
> I'll drown you in Rabbi urine, I already have volunteers drinking coffee
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There are no nazis here.
> 
> In person or here you are out of your league.
> 
> When meeting in person you can onlty whine
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Says the Nazi.........................................
> 
> LOL what is my league?
> 
> Since you think you know
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No nazi said that and you are lying.
> 
> The peewee league.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Think you wanna go a round in the peewee league?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Already did you lost
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nah Apple, Google and Netflix are way up.
> 
> But you stay there and blame your ignorance on the Jews
> 
> You know like the obedient Nazi that you are
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are the only proven and self admitted nazi here
> I am less ignorant than you. Unlike you i learn so I can become less ignorant you revel in your ignorance and stupdiity
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
> 
> You ask your Mother for help with that?
> 
> Is it fun hating Jews so much that you name yourself Nazi?
> 
> Enjoy that hate, it's hardening your arteries now
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I never named myself that but you openly admitted to it
> 
> Yoiu are the only sewlf proclaimed anti semetic here.
> 
> I do not live in my moms basement like you kid
Click to expand...

No one cares what the local Nazi says kiddy.

Try learning to spell, or at least run a speghlign choker.

LOL ignorance is bliss


----------



## Soupnazi630

esalla said:


> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> All the evidence that we have says we are alone in the universe.
> 
> If anybody has any evidence to the contrary they haven't produced it yet.
> 
> If the universe is finite then there will unique things in it.  Life on earth may be unique.
> 
> The universe is a pretty hellish place for life.
> 
> 
> 
> That is not what all the evidence says.
> 
> It is true we have not found evidence of life yet but we are only barely getting a glimpse beyond are own world. What we do know is many many worlds exist beyond are own and we keep finding worlds CAPABLE of supporting life. As it turns out planets hospitable to life are common.
> 
> Combined with the math it is likely to the point of being a certainty that life exists on other worlds.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> We have absolutely no evidence that there is life on any place other than earth.  After many decades of serious research we have not been able to turn chemistry into biology in a lab.
> 
> The more we learn about earth and the more we learn about the rest of the cosmos the more learn that earth is not like other places.  The universe is very hostile to our understanding of life.
> 
> Statistics don't produce life. In order for any statistical probability to be valid we need more than one data point.  We only have one data point.  Until (if ever) we get another data we have absolutely nothing.
> 
> We have been brainwashed by 100 years of Science Fiction.  We are absolutely positive life exist elsewhere because we see it on TV and the movies and read about in books.  However, the scientific reality is much different.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So if you have never seen it, then it can not exist.
> 
> Ok kid, babble on
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I have never seen the giant turtle that everybody use to say carried the universe around on its back.  When I see it I will I will believe it.   Just because other people want to believe that the turtle exist don't make it a scientific fact.
> 
> We have absolutely no proof of life on anyplace other than earth and we can't produce life in a lab.  That makes life unique to earth until proven otherwise.
> 
> Show me the money!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> and once again we are only barely becoming to look .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The more we look the more we find out that the universe is hostile to life.
> 
> Some people claim that since there are so many stars in the sky there just _has to be_ life elsewhere.
> 
> However, for instance, we have recently learned that almost 70% of those stars in the galaxy are cooler red dwarfs and that they are highly variable in energy output.  It is hard to produce life when the temeperature is 70 degrees one day and 370 degrees the next day, isn't it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually that is not true as the only places we have looked in the universe for life is within our solar system.  Meaning that 99.9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999  percent has not been looked at.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What we do see when we look into the sky is an universe that seems to be hostile to life.  Variable stars where life has no chance of evolving, tremendous life destroying radiation, vast coldness,  extreme chaos.  It goes on and on.
> 
> We have absolutely no proof life exist elsewhere.  Until (if ever) it is proven then we have absolutely nothing. Ziltch.  Nada.
> 
> Referencing the Star Trek episode where Cpt Kirk screws the green Orion sex slave doesn't count.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We see many many worlds where it CAN exist.
> 
> The number of such worlds grows every year. We do. It look in empty radiation soaked space between worlds.
> 
> yes we have no proof what we have is enormous probability hence we keep looking
> 
> willful ignorance does not count
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nothing about the suitability for life outside of this solar system is known
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> wrong
> 
> we already know there are many exo planets which are very suitable
> 
> we find new ones every year many sharing the same star system
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You know nothing, all you can do is repeat what you saw on Cosmos like a trained parrot
> 
> But carry on
> 
> Polly want a cracker
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As always I know more than you
> 
> Like in the conspiracy threads I crushed you in you strictly and exclusively read what suits your view and ignore everything  else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes indeed all Nazis know more than me.   Until we meet that is.
> 
> I'll drown you in Rabbi urine, I already have volunteers drinking coffee
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There are no nazis here.
> 
> In person or here you are out of your league.
> 
> When meeting in person you can onlty whine
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Says the Nazi.........................................
> 
> LOL what is my league?
> 
> Since you think you know
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No nazi said that and you are lying.
> 
> The peewee league.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Think you wanna go a round in the peewee league?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Already did you lost
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nah Apple, Google and Netflix are way up.
> 
> But you stay there and blame your ignorance on the Jews
> 
> You know like the obedient Nazi that you are
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are the only proven and self admitted nazi here
> I am less ignorant than you. Unlike you i learn so I can become less ignorant you revel in your ignorance and stupdiity
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
> 
> You ask your Mother for help with that?
> 
> Is it fun hating Jews so much that you name yourself Nazi?
> 
> Enjoy that hate, it's hardening your arteries now
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I never named myself that but you openly admitted to it
> 
> Yoiu are the only sewlf proclaimed anti semetic here.
> 
> I do not live in my moms basement like you kid
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No one cares what the local Nazi says kiddy.
> 
> Try learning to spell, or at least run a speghlign choker.
> 
> LOL ignorance is bliss
Click to expand...

Thats why everyone ignores your little ignorant nazi ass


----------



## esalla

Soupnazi630 said:


> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> All the evidence that we have says we are alone in the universe.
> 
> If anybody has any evidence to the contrary they haven't produced it yet.
> 
> If the universe is finite then there will unique things in it.  Life on earth may be unique.
> 
> The universe is a pretty hellish place for life.
> 
> 
> 
> That is not what all the evidence says.
> 
> It is true we have not found evidence of life yet but we are only barely getting a glimpse beyond are own world. What we do know is many many worlds exist beyond are own and we keep finding worlds CAPABLE of supporting life. As it turns out planets hospitable to life are common.
> 
> Combined with the math it is likely to the point of being a certainty that life exists on other worlds.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> We have absolutely no evidence that there is life on any place other than earth.  After many decades of serious research we have not been able to turn chemistry into biology in a lab.
> 
> The more we learn about earth and the more we learn about the rest of the cosmos the more learn that earth is not like other places.  The universe is very hostile to our understanding of life.
> 
> Statistics don't produce life. In order for any statistical probability to be valid we need more than one data point.  We only have one data point.  Until (if ever) we get another data we have absolutely nothing.
> 
> We have been brainwashed by 100 years of Science Fiction.  We are absolutely positive life exist elsewhere because we see it on TV and the movies and read about in books.  However, the scientific reality is much different.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So if you have never seen it, then it can not exist.
> 
> Ok kid, babble on
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I have never seen the giant turtle that everybody use to say carried the universe around on its back.  When I see it I will I will believe it.   Just because other people want to believe that the turtle exist don't make it a scientific fact.
> 
> We have absolutely no proof of life on anyplace other than earth and we can't produce life in a lab.  That makes life unique to earth until proven otherwise.
> 
> Show me the money!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> and once again we are only barely becoming to look .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The more we look the more we find out that the universe is hostile to life.
> 
> Some people claim that since there are so many stars in the sky there just _has to be_ life elsewhere.
> 
> However, for instance, we have recently learned that almost 70% of those stars in the galaxy are cooler red dwarfs and that they are highly variable in energy output.  It is hard to produce life when the temeperature is 70 degrees one day and 370 degrees the next day, isn't it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually that is not true as the only places we have looked in the universe for life is within our solar system.  Meaning that 99.9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999  percent has not been looked at.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What we do see when we look into the sky is an universe that seems to be hostile to life.  Variable stars where life has no chance of evolving, tremendous life destroying radiation, vast coldness,  extreme chaos.  It goes on and on.
> 
> We have absolutely no proof life exist elsewhere.  Until (if ever) it is proven then we have absolutely nothing. Ziltch.  Nada.
> 
> Referencing the Star Trek episode where Cpt Kirk screws the green Orion sex slave doesn't count.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We see many many worlds where it CAN exist.
> 
> The number of such worlds grows every year. We do. It look in empty radiation soaked space between worlds.
> 
> yes we have no proof what we have is enormous probability hence we keep looking
> 
> willful ignorance does not count
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nothing about the suitability for life outside of this solar system is known
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> wrong
> 
> we already know there are many exo planets which are very suitable
> 
> we find new ones every year many sharing the same star system
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You know nothing, all you can do is repeat what you saw on Cosmos like a trained parrot
> 
> But carry on
> 
> Polly want a cracker
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As always I know more than you
> 
> Like in the conspiracy threads I crushed you in you strictly and exclusively read what suits your view and ignore everything  else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes indeed all Nazis know more than me.   Until we meet that is.
> 
> I'll drown you in Rabbi urine, I already have volunteers drinking coffee
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There are no nazis here.
> 
> In person or here you are out of your league.
> 
> When meeting in person you can onlty whine
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Says the Nazi.........................................
> 
> LOL what is my league?
> 
> Since you think you know
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No nazi said that and you are lying.
> 
> The peewee league.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Think you wanna go a round in the peewee league?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Already did you lost
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nah Apple, Google and Netflix are way up.
> 
> But you stay there and blame your ignorance on the Jews
> 
> You know like the obedient Nazi that you are
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are the only proven and self admitted nazi here
> I am less ignorant than you. Unlike you i learn so I can become less ignorant you revel in your ignorance and stupdiity
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
> 
> You ask your Mother for help with that?
> 
> Is it fun hating Jews so much that you name yourself Nazi?
> 
> Enjoy that hate, it's hardening your arteries now
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I never named myself that but you openly admitted to it
> 
> Yoiu are the only sewlf proclaimed anti semetic here.
> 
> I do not live in my moms basement like you kid
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No one cares what the local Nazi says kiddy.
> 
> Try learning to spell, or at least run a speghlign choker.
> 
> LOL ignorance is bliss
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thats why everyone ignores your little ignorant nazi ass
Click to expand...

Says the Nazi who lives in denial


----------



## Soupnazi630

esalla said:


> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> All the evidence that we have says we are alone in the universe.
> 
> If anybody has any evidence to the contrary they haven't produced it yet.
> 
> If the universe is finite then there will unique things in it.  Life on earth may be unique.
> 
> The universe is a pretty hellish place for life.
> 
> 
> 
> That is not what all the evidence says.
> 
> It is true we have not found evidence of life yet but we are only barely getting a glimpse beyond are own world. What we do know is many many worlds exist beyond are own and we keep finding worlds CAPABLE of supporting life. As it turns out planets hospitable to life are common.
> 
> Combined with the math it is likely to the point of being a certainty that life exists on other worlds.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> We have absolutely no evidence that there is life on any place other than earth.  After many decades of serious research we have not been able to turn chemistry into biology in a lab.
> 
> The more we learn about earth and the more we learn about the rest of the cosmos the more learn that earth is not like other places.  The universe is very hostile to our understanding of life.
> 
> Statistics don't produce life. In order for any statistical probability to be valid we need more than one data point.  We only have one data point.  Until (if ever) we get another data we have absolutely nothing.
> 
> We have been brainwashed by 100 years of Science Fiction.  We are absolutely positive life exist elsewhere because we see it on TV and the movies and read about in books.  However, the scientific reality is much different.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So if you have never seen it, then it can not exist.
> 
> Ok kid, babble on
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I have never seen the giant turtle that everybody use to say carried the universe around on its back.  When I see it I will I will believe it.   Just because other people want to believe that the turtle exist don't make it a scientific fact.
> 
> We have absolutely no proof of life on anyplace other than earth and we can't produce life in a lab.  That makes life unique to earth until proven otherwise.
> 
> Show me the money!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> and once again we are only barely becoming to look .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The more we look the more we find out that the universe is hostile to life.
> 
> Some people claim that since there are so many stars in the sky there just _has to be_ life elsewhere.
> 
> However, for instance, we have recently learned that almost 70% of those stars in the galaxy are cooler red dwarfs and that they are highly variable in energy output.  It is hard to produce life when the temeperature is 70 degrees one day and 370 degrees the next day, isn't it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually that is not true as the only places we have looked in the universe for life is within our solar system.  Meaning that 99.9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999  percent has not been looked at.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What we do see when we look into the sky is an universe that seems to be hostile to life.  Variable stars where life has no chance of evolving, tremendous life destroying radiation, vast coldness,  extreme chaos.  It goes on and on.
> 
> We have absolutely no proof life exist elsewhere.  Until (if ever) it is proven then we have absolutely nothing. Ziltch.  Nada.
> 
> Referencing the Star Trek episode where Cpt Kirk screws the green Orion sex slave doesn't count.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We see many many worlds where it CAN exist.
> 
> The number of such worlds grows every year. We do. It look in empty radiation soaked space between worlds.
> 
> yes we have no proof what we have is enormous probability hence we keep looking
> 
> willful ignorance does not count
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nothing about the suitability for life outside of this solar system is known
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> wrong
> 
> we already know there are many exo planets which are very suitable
> 
> we find new ones every year many sharing the same star system
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You know nothing, all you can do is repeat what you saw on Cosmos like a trained parrot
> 
> But carry on
> 
> Polly want a cracker
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As always I know more than you
> 
> Like in the conspiracy threads I crushed you in you strictly and exclusively read what suits your view and ignore everything  else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes indeed all Nazis know more than me.   Until we meet that is.
> 
> I'll drown you in Rabbi urine, I already have volunteers drinking coffee
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There are no nazis here.
> 
> In person or here you are out of your league.
> 
> When meeting in person you can onlty whine
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Says the Nazi.........................................
> 
> LOL what is my league?
> 
> Since you think you know
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No nazi said that and you are lying.
> 
> The peewee league.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Think you wanna go a round in the peewee league?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Already did you lost
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nah Apple, Google and Netflix are way up.
> 
> But you stay there and blame your ignorance on the Jews
> 
> You know like the obedient Nazi that you are
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are the only proven and self admitted nazi here
> I am less ignorant than you. Unlike you i learn so I can become less ignorant you revel in your ignorance and stupdiity
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
> 
> You ask your Mother for help with that?
> 
> Is it fun hating Jews so much that you name yourself Nazi?
> 
> Enjoy that hate, it's hardening your arteries now
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I never named myself that but you openly admitted to it
> 
> Yoiu are the only sewlf proclaimed anti semetic here.
> 
> I do not live in my moms basement like you kid
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No one cares what the local Nazi says kiddy.
> 
> Try learning to spell, or at least run a speghlign choker.
> 
> LOL ignorance is bliss
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thats why everyone ignores your little ignorant nazi ass
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Says the Nazi who lives in denial
Click to expand...

Says the self admitted nazi who lies when defeated in an argument


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are no theories that aliens did not happen.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First, we define aliens as intelligent aliens.  We're not discussing just outer space abiogenesis.  We have Drake's Equation, Fermi's Paradox, The Great Filter, and other arguments against it.  The fine tuning facts prevent abiogenesis, so it becomes a big reason for no aliens.
> 
> Furthermore, the Bible does not state God created aliens nor Jesus died to save aliens.  The hard evidence is none has been found despite SETI, optical SETI, Alien Telescope Array, space explorations and fly bys with probes and powerful telescopes.  There are other methods of contact which have been explored, but still nothing.
> 
> The atheist scientists such a Neil deGrasse Tyson and Stephen Hawking still think they exist, but no evidence for them.  Hawking has died not knowing aliens exist like Carl Sagan.  deGrasse Tyson will die without knowing, too, and he says sometimes it keeps him up at night thinking about how science can help find them.  Other top scientists who believed in the possibility of aliens and have died without knowing are Albert Einstein, Nikola Tesla, and Richard Feynman.
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The fact that we are here proves abiogenesis happens
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It also proves God is the creator.  More evidence for God than abiogenesis or aliens because we found a book that explains step-by-step how it happened.  Atheists still have vast universe and top scientists who believe in it, but they have all died without ever knowing aliens or abiogenesis.  Creation scientists and I believe the vast universe demonstrates the beauty, complexity, and glory of God instead.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Please identify where Fermi's Paradox, Drake's Equation, The Great Filter, and your nonsensical “fine tuning facts” presents any evidence for or against alien life.
> 
> Please support your nonsense claim about some “fine tuning” you claim exist. Please supply peer reviewed evidence that a) supports your version of the gods, and then, b) supporting evidence that your gods have a supernatural hand in the workings of the universe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You been supplied with it many times, but just can't get it through the thickness.
> 
> Obviously, it's your side's claim and so need to produce the aliens and evidence of abiogenesis.  That would show the atheist scientists were right and victory is yours.
> 
> Until then, the victory goes to the fine tuning side.  I will give you this as ID has passed peer review just to tweak your nose some more -- https://www.breakpoint.org/intelligent-design-passes-peer-review/.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Encyclopedia of American Loons
> 
> 
> It’s … The Encyclopedia of American loons! Our new and exciting series presenting a representative sample of American loons from A-Z.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> americanloons.blogspot.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Charles “Chuck” Wendell Colson is a Christian leader, cultural commentator, and author of lots of book books, several of which have been recognized with ECPA Christian Book Awards. Colson was a former Special Counsel for President Richard Nixon from 1969 to 1973 and the first member of the Nixon administration to be incarcerated for Watergate-related charges (he was named as one of the Watergate Seven). He was never charged with or convicted of anything related to that, but did plead guilty to obstruction of justice in another case and served seven months of a one-to-three year sentence in Alabama's Maxwell Prison. He is also a Templeton foundation recipient and winner of a number of awards, among them honorary doctorates from you-know-what-kind-of institutions, and the Others Award from the Salvation Army (you might want to look up the list of previous winners here. He's also a member of the Family (more here).
> 
> He also maintains several media channels which discuss contemporary issues from an evangelical Christian worldview, his own views usually being conservative interpretation of evangelical Christianity. He zealously opposes same-sex marriage, argues that Darwinism is used to attack Christianity, and that the Enron accounting scandals were a consequence of secularism. He is, in short, a hard-core creationist repeating Discovery Institute lies - claiming Darwinism helped cause forced sterilizations by eugenicists – and a steadfast anti-abortionist, claiming that abortion is the real cause of illegal immigration by creating a labor shortage due to "40 million sacrificed since 1973". He is also a steadfast proponent of the Bible Literacy Project's curriculum “The Bible and Its Influence” for public high school literature courses – a poorly disguised wedge trick.
> 
> There is much to choose from in Colson’s career. There is, for instance, his argument that the real causes of terrorism are pornography and abortion, and if only the US restricted the freedom of its citizens some more, terrorism would go away (I mean, the Taliban hates us for our freedom, don’t they? Take it away, and they wouldn’t hate us anymore).
> 
> Diagnosis: Deranged wingnut and blind zealot with no aptitude for truth or reason. Still pretty powerful and influential.
Click to expand...


It's strange where your rantings lead me sometimes.  I looked up what happened to Colson after your rant.  

It's mostly a good biography for the man except for the last two paragraphs and "wedge trick."  Is it a wedge trick when he became Christian before going to trial and eventual prison?

'When the Watergate scandal broke, Chuck found himself at the center of the storm as one of the "Watergate Seven." Under the pressure, Chuck retired into private life, but the threat of prosecution on Watergate-related charges still haunted him and his family.

At this critical moment, a close friend gave Chuck a copy of _Mere Christianity_, a book by popular British author C.S. Lewis that explores and defends the core beliefs of the Christian faith. The book sparked a series of conversations and encounters that led, finally, to Chuck's conversion.

"I spent an hour calling out to God," Chuck remembered in 2008, describing the night he spent sitting in his car, sobbing and praying. "I did not even know the right words. I simply knew that I wanted Him."'

After getting out, he founded the Prison Fellowship -- Watergate: The Glorious Defeat of Chuck Colson - Prison Fellowship.

Your argument is a biased blog site.  So much for your scientific reading cred.  Did you think it was an encyclopedia ?

We got American Liberal Loons and President and VP now.


----------



## esalla

Soupnazi630 said:


> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> All the evidence that we have says we are alone in the universe.
> 
> If anybody has any evidence to the contrary they haven't produced it yet.
> 
> If the universe is finite then there will unique things in it.  Life on earth may be unique.
> 
> The universe is a pretty hellish place for life.
> 
> 
> 
> That is not what all the evidence says.
> 
> It is true we have not found evidence of life yet but we are only barely getting a glimpse beyond are own world. What we do know is many many worlds exist beyond are own and we keep finding worlds CAPABLE of supporting life. As it turns out planets hospitable to life are common.
> 
> Combined with the math it is likely to the point of being a certainty that life exists on other worlds.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> We have absolutely no evidence that there is life on any place other than earth.  After many decades of serious research we have not been able to turn chemistry into biology in a lab.
> 
> The more we learn about earth and the more we learn about the rest of the cosmos the more learn that earth is not like other places.  The universe is very hostile to our understanding of life.
> 
> Statistics don't produce life. In order for any statistical probability to be valid we need more than one data point.  We only have one data point.  Until (if ever) we get another data we have absolutely nothing.
> 
> We have been brainwashed by 100 years of Science Fiction.  We are absolutely positive life exist elsewhere because we see it on TV and the movies and read about in books.  However, the scientific reality is much different.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So if you have never seen it, then it can not exist.
> 
> Ok kid, babble on
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I have never seen the giant turtle that everybody use to say carried the universe around on its back.  When I see it I will I will believe it.   Just because other people want to believe that the turtle exist don't make it a scientific fact.
> 
> We have absolutely no proof of life on anyplace other than earth and we can't produce life in a lab.  That makes life unique to earth until proven otherwise.
> 
> Show me the money!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> and once again we are only barely becoming to look .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The more we look the more we find out that the universe is hostile to life.
> 
> Some people claim that since there are so many stars in the sky there just _has to be_ life elsewhere.
> 
> However, for instance, we have recently learned that almost 70% of those stars in the galaxy are cooler red dwarfs and that they are highly variable in energy output.  It is hard to produce life when the temeperature is 70 degrees one day and 370 degrees the next day, isn't it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually that is not true as the only places we have looked in the universe for life is within our solar system.  Meaning that 99.9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999  percent has not been looked at.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What we do see when we look into the sky is an universe that seems to be hostile to life.  Variable stars where life has no chance of evolving, tremendous life destroying radiation, vast coldness,  extreme chaos.  It goes on and on.
> 
> We have absolutely no proof life exist elsewhere.  Until (if ever) it is proven then we have absolutely nothing. Ziltch.  Nada.
> 
> Referencing the Star Trek episode where Cpt Kirk screws the green Orion sex slave doesn't count.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We see many many worlds where it CAN exist.
> 
> The number of such worlds grows every year. We do. It look in empty radiation soaked space between worlds.
> 
> yes we have no proof what we have is enormous probability hence we keep looking
> 
> willful ignorance does not count
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nothing about the suitability for life outside of this solar system is known
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> wrong
> 
> we already know there are many exo planets which are very suitable
> 
> we find new ones every year many sharing the same star system
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You know nothing, all you can do is repeat what you saw on Cosmos like a trained parrot
> 
> But carry on
> 
> Polly want a cracker
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As always I know more than you
> 
> Like in the conspiracy threads I crushed you in you strictly and exclusively read what suits your view and ignore everything  else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes indeed all Nazis know more than me.   Until we meet that is.
> 
> I'll drown you in Rabbi urine, I already have volunteers drinking coffee
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There are no nazis here.
> 
> In person or here you are out of your league.
> 
> When meeting in person you can onlty whine
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Says the Nazi.........................................
> 
> LOL what is my league?
> 
> Since you think you know
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No nazi said that and you are lying.
> 
> The peewee league.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Think you wanna go a round in the peewee league?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Already did you lost
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nah Apple, Google and Netflix are way up.
> 
> But you stay there and blame your ignorance on the Jews
> 
> You know like the obedient Nazi that you are
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are the only proven and self admitted nazi here
> I am less ignorant than you. Unlike you i learn so I can become less ignorant you revel in your ignorance and stupdiity
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
> 
> You ask your Mother for help with that?
> 
> Is it fun hating Jews so much that you name yourself Nazi?
> 
> Enjoy that hate, it's hardening your arteries now
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I never named myself that but you openly admitted to it
> 
> Yoiu are the only sewlf proclaimed anti semetic here.
> 
> I do not live in my moms basement like you kid
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No one cares what the local Nazi says kiddy.
> 
> Try learning to spell, or at least run a speghlign choker.
> 
> LOL ignorance is bliss
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thats why everyone ignores your little ignorant nazi ass
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Says the Nazi who lives in denial
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Says the self admitted nazi who lies when defeated in an argument
Click to expand...

Seriously dude, you are a Mossad agent or a wannabe Mossad agent who would never be noticed if he or she posted as a Nazi right?

Well so much for that plan kiddy, now go rock by the wall like the autistic kid you are


----------



## Soupnazi630

esalla said:


> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> All the evidence that we have says we are alone in the universe.
> 
> If anybody has any evidence to the contrary they haven't produced it yet.
> 
> If the universe is finite then there will unique things in it.  Life on earth may be unique.
> 
> The universe is a pretty hellish place for life.
> 
> 
> 
> That is not what all the evidence says.
> 
> It is true we have not found evidence of life yet but we are only barely getting a glimpse beyond are own world. What we do know is many many worlds exist beyond are own and we keep finding worlds CAPABLE of supporting life. As it turns out planets hospitable to life are common.
> 
> Combined with the math it is likely to the point of being a certainty that life exists on other worlds.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> We have absolutely no evidence that there is life on any place other than earth.  After many decades of serious research we have not been able to turn chemistry into biology in a lab.
> 
> The more we learn about earth and the more we learn about the rest of the cosmos the more learn that earth is not like other places.  The universe is very hostile to our understanding of life.
> 
> Statistics don't produce life. In order for any statistical probability to be valid we need more than one data point.  We only have one data point.  Until (if ever) we get another data we have absolutely nothing.
> 
> We have been brainwashed by 100 years of Science Fiction.  We are absolutely positive life exist elsewhere because we see it on TV and the movies and read about in books.  However, the scientific reality is much different.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So if you have never seen it, then it can not exist.
> 
> Ok kid, babble on
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I have never seen the giant turtle that everybody use to say carried the universe around on its back.  When I see it I will I will believe it.   Just because other people want to believe that the turtle exist don't make it a scientific fact.
> 
> We have absolutely no proof of life on anyplace other than earth and we can't produce life in a lab.  That makes life unique to earth until proven otherwise.
> 
> Show me the money!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> and once again we are only barely becoming to look .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The more we look the more we find out that the universe is hostile to life.
> 
> Some people claim that since there are so many stars in the sky there just _has to be_ life elsewhere.
> 
> However, for instance, we have recently learned that almost 70% of those stars in the galaxy are cooler red dwarfs and that they are highly variable in energy output.  It is hard to produce life when the temeperature is 70 degrees one day and 370 degrees the next day, isn't it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually that is not true as the only places we have looked in the universe for life is within our solar system.  Meaning that 99.9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999  percent has not been looked at.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What we do see when we look into the sky is an universe that seems to be hostile to life.  Variable stars where life has no chance of evolving, tremendous life destroying radiation, vast coldness,  extreme chaos.  It goes on and on.
> 
> We have absolutely no proof life exist elsewhere.  Until (if ever) it is proven then we have absolutely nothing. Ziltch.  Nada.
> 
> Referencing the Star Trek episode where Cpt Kirk screws the green Orion sex slave doesn't count.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We see many many worlds where it CAN exist.
> 
> The number of such worlds grows every year. We do. It look in empty radiation soaked space between worlds.
> 
> yes we have no proof what we have is enormous probability hence we keep looking
> 
> willful ignorance does not count
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nothing about the suitability for life outside of this solar system is known
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> wrong
> 
> we already know there are many exo planets which are very suitable
> 
> we find new ones every year many sharing the same star system
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You know nothing, all you can do is repeat what you saw on Cosmos like a trained parrot
> 
> But carry on
> 
> Polly want a cracker
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As always I know more than you
> 
> Like in the conspiracy threads I crushed you in you strictly and exclusively read what suits your view and ignore everything  else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes indeed all Nazis know more than me.   Until we meet that is.
> 
> I'll drown you in Rabbi urine, I already have volunteers drinking coffee
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There are no nazis here.
> 
> In person or here you are out of your league.
> 
> When meeting in person you can onlty whine
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Says the Nazi.........................................
> 
> LOL what is my league?
> 
> Since you think you know
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No nazi said that and you are lying.
> 
> The peewee league.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Think you wanna go a round in the peewee league?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Already did you lost
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nah Apple, Google and Netflix are way up.
> 
> But you stay there and blame your ignorance on the Jews
> 
> You know like the obedient Nazi that you are
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are the only proven and self admitted nazi here
> I am less ignorant than you. Unlike you i learn so I can become less ignorant you revel in your ignorance and stupdiity
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
> 
> You ask your Mother for help with that?
> 
> Is it fun hating Jews so much that you name yourself Nazi?
> 
> Enjoy that hate, it's hardening your arteries now
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I never named myself that but you openly admitted to it
> 
> Yoiu are the only sewlf proclaimed anti semetic here.
> 
> I do not live in my moms basement like you kid
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No one cares what the local Nazi says kiddy.
> 
> Try learning to spell, or at least run a speghlign choker.
> 
> LOL ignorance is bliss
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thats why everyone ignores your little ignorant nazi ass
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Says the Nazi who lives in denial
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Says the self admitted nazi who lies when defeated in an argument
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Seriously dude, you are a Mossad agent or a wannabe Mossad agent who would never be noticed if he or she posted as a Nazi right?
> 
> Well so much for that plan kiddy, now go rock by the wall like the autistic kid you are
Click to expand...

Seriously boy the Mossad does not have such agents.

Yes you are done and defeated go run along and play world of war craft

Others want to discuss issues without your juvenile bullshit,

Its fun proving tyou wrong all the time but it gets old when you cry like a bitch afterward


----------



## Likkmee

Soupnazi630 said:


> Wro
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> All the evidence that we have says we are alone in the universe.
> 
> If anybody has any evidence to the contrary they haven't produced it yet.
> 
> If the universe is finite then there will unique things in it.  Life on earth may be unique.
> 
> The universe is a pretty hellish place for life.
> 
> 
> 
> That is not what all the evidence says.
> 
> It is true we have not found evidence of life yet but we are only barely getting a glimpse beyond are own world. What we do know is many many worlds exist beyond are own and we keep finding worlds CAPABLE of supporting life. As it turns out planets hospitable to life are common.
> 
> Combined with the math it is likely to the point of being a certainty that life exists on other worlds.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> We have absolutely no evidence that there is life on any place other than earth.  After many decades of serious research we have not been able to turn chemistry into biology in a lab.
> 
> The more we learn about earth and the more we learn about the rest of the cosmos the more learn that earth is not like other places.  The universe is very hostile to our understanding of life.
> 
> Statistics don't produce life. In order for any statistical probability to be valid we need more than one data point.  We only have one data point.  Until (if ever) we get another data we have absolutely nothing.
> 
> We have been brainwashed by 100 years of Science Fiction.  We are absolutely positive life exist elsewhere because we see it on TV and the movies and read about in books.  However, the scientific reality is much different.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So if you have never seen it, then it can not exist.
> 
> Ok kid, babble on
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I have never seen the giant turtle that everybody use to say carried the universe around on its back.  When I see it I will I will believe it.   Just because other people want to believe that the turtle exist don't make it a scientific fact.
> 
> We have absolutely no proof of life on anyplace other than earth and we can't produce life in a lab.  That makes life unique to earth until proven otherwise.
> 
> Show me the money!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> and once again we are only barely becoming to look .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The more we look the more we find out that the universe is hostile to life.
> 
> Some people claim that since there are so many stars in the sky there just _has to be_ life elsewhere.
> 
> However, for instance, we have recently learned that almost 70% of those stars in the galaxy are cooler red dwarfs and that they are highly variable in energy output.  It is hard to produce life when the temeperature is 70 degrees one day and 370 degrees the next day, isn't it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually that is not true as the only places we have looked in the universe for life is within our solar system.  Meaning that 99.9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999  percent has not been looked at.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We look for habitable planets and have found many inc!using some in our solar system
> 
> With so much unseen it is a near certainty
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL there is only one habitable planet in this solar system, though we might be able to tweak some form of life to live on Mars
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong
> 
> There are several
> 
> Get out of moms basement now and then and learn something
Click to expand...

Actually moms basement might be a good place to learn science in silence...... ? Or to to a Trump -Biden piss off and you'll know everything in a couple hours flat. Confirm on CCN/NBC/Hannutsy/Ingram . Then spend 3 days at Disney


----------



## esalla

Soupnazi630 said:


> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> All the evidence that we have says we are alone in the universe.
> 
> If anybody has any evidence to the contrary they haven't produced it yet.
> 
> If the universe is finite then there will unique things in it.  Life on earth may be unique.
> 
> The universe is a pretty hellish place for life.
> 
> 
> 
> That is not what all the evidence says.
> 
> It is true we have not found evidence of life yet but we are only barely getting a glimpse beyond are own world. What we do know is many many worlds exist beyond are own and we keep finding worlds CAPABLE of supporting life. As it turns out planets hospitable to life are common.
> 
> Combined with the math it is likely to the point of being a certainty that life exists on other worlds.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> We have absolutely no evidence that there is life on any place other than earth.  After many decades of serious research we have not been able to turn chemistry into biology in a lab.
> 
> The more we learn about earth and the more we learn about the rest of the cosmos the more learn that earth is not like other places.  The universe is very hostile to our understanding of life.
> 
> Statistics don't produce life. In order for any statistical probability to be valid we need more than one data point.  We only have one data point.  Until (if ever) we get another data we have absolutely nothing.
> 
> We have been brainwashed by 100 years of Science Fiction.  We are absolutely positive life exist elsewhere because we see it on TV and the movies and read about in books.  However, the scientific reality is much different.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So if you have never seen it, then it can not exist.
> 
> Ok kid, babble on
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I have never seen the giant turtle that everybody use to say carried the universe around on its back.  When I see it I will I will believe it.   Just because other people want to believe that the turtle exist don't make it a scientific fact.
> 
> We have absolutely no proof of life on anyplace other than earth and we can't produce life in a lab.  That makes life unique to earth until proven otherwise.
> 
> Show me the money!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> and once again we are only barely becoming to look .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The more we look the more we find out that the universe is hostile to life.
> 
> Some people claim that since there are so many stars in the sky there just _has to be_ life elsewhere.
> 
> However, for instance, we have recently learned that almost 70% of those stars in the galaxy are cooler red dwarfs and that they are highly variable in energy output.  It is hard to produce life when the temeperature is 70 degrees one day and 370 degrees the next day, isn't it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually that is not true as the only places we have looked in the universe for life is within our solar system.  Meaning that 99.9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999  percent has not been looked at.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What we do see when we look into the sky is an universe that seems to be hostile to life.  Variable stars where life has no chance of evolving, tremendous life destroying radiation, vast coldness,  extreme chaos.  It goes on and on.
> 
> We have absolutely no proof life exist elsewhere.  Until (if ever) it is proven then we have absolutely nothing. Ziltch.  Nada.
> 
> Referencing the Star Trek episode where Cpt Kirk screws the green Orion sex slave doesn't count.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We see many many worlds where it CAN exist.
> 
> The number of such worlds grows every year. We do. It look in empty radiation soaked space between worlds.
> 
> yes we have no proof what we have is enormous probability hence we keep looking
> 
> willful ignorance does not count
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nothing about the suitability for life outside of this solar system is known
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> wrong
> 
> we already know there are many exo planets which are very suitable
> 
> we find new ones every year many sharing the same star system
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You know nothing, all you can do is repeat what you saw on Cosmos like a trained parrot
> 
> But carry on
> 
> Polly want a cracker
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As always I know more than you
> 
> Like in the conspiracy threads I crushed you in you strictly and exclusively read what suits your view and ignore everything  else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes indeed all Nazis know more than me.   Until we meet that is.
> 
> I'll drown you in Rabbi urine, I already have volunteers drinking coffee
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There are no nazis here.
> 
> In person or here you are out of your league.
> 
> When meeting in person you can onlty whine
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Says the Nazi.........................................
> 
> LOL what is my league?
> 
> Since you think you know
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No nazi said that and you are lying.
> 
> The peewee league.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Think you wanna go a round in the peewee league?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Already did you lost
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nah Apple, Google and Netflix are way up.
> 
> But you stay there and blame your ignorance on the Jews
> 
> You know like the obedient Nazi that you are
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are the only proven and self admitted nazi here
> I am less ignorant than you. Unlike you i learn so I can become less ignorant you revel in your ignorance and stupdiity
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
> 
> You ask your Mother for help with that?
> 
> Is it fun hating Jews so much that you name yourself Nazi?
> 
> Enjoy that hate, it's hardening your arteries now
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I never named myself that but you openly admitted to it
> 
> Yoiu are the only sewlf proclaimed anti semetic here.
> 
> I do not live in my moms basement like you kid
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No one cares what the local Nazi says kiddy.
> 
> Try learning to spell, or at least run a speghlign choker.
> 
> LOL ignorance is bliss
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thats why everyone ignores your little ignorant nazi ass
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Says the Nazi who lives in denial
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Says the self admitted nazi who lies when defeated in an argument
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Seriously dude, you are a Mossad agent or a wannabe Mossad agent who would never be noticed if he or she posted as a Nazi right?
> 
> Well so much for that plan kiddy, now go rock by the wall like the autistic kid you are
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Seriously boy the Mossad does not have such agents.
> 
> Yes you are done and defeated go run along and play world of war craft
> 
> Others want to discuss issues without your juvenile bullshit,
> 
> Its fun proving tyou wrong all the time but it gets old when you cry like a bitch afterward
Click to expand...

How does it feel to be exposed?

So you admit to knowing what kind of agents the Mossad has.  Tell us more doofy

Yawn


----------



## Soupnazi630

esalla said:


> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> All the evidence that we have says we are alone in the universe.
> 
> If anybody has any evidence to the contrary they haven't produced it yet.
> 
> If the universe is finite then there will unique things in it.  Life on earth may be unique.
> 
> The universe is a pretty hellish place for life.
> 
> 
> 
> That is not what all the evidence says.
> 
> It is true we have not found evidence of life yet but we are only barely getting a glimpse beyond are own world. What we do know is many many worlds exist beyond are own and we keep finding worlds CAPABLE of supporting life. As it turns out planets hospitable to life are common.
> 
> Combined with the math it is likely to the point of being a certainty that life exists on other worlds.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> We have absolutely no evidence that there is life on any place other than earth.  After many decades of serious research we have not been able to turn chemistry into biology in a lab.
> 
> The more we learn about earth and the more we learn about the rest of the cosmos the more learn that earth is not like other places.  The universe is very hostile to our understanding of life.
> 
> Statistics don't produce life. In order for any statistical probability to be valid we need more than one data point.  We only have one data point.  Until (if ever) we get another data we have absolutely nothing.
> 
> We have been brainwashed by 100 years of Science Fiction.  We are absolutely positive life exist elsewhere because we see it on TV and the movies and read about in books.  However, the scientific reality is much different.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So if you have never seen it, then it can not exist.
> 
> Ok kid, babble on
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I have never seen the giant turtle that everybody use to say carried the universe around on its back.  When I see it I will I will believe it.   Just because other people want to believe that the turtle exist don't make it a scientific fact.
> 
> We have absolutely no proof of life on anyplace other than earth and we can't produce life in a lab.  That makes life unique to earth until proven otherwise.
> 
> Show me the money!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> and once again we are only barely becoming to look .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The more we look the more we find out that the universe is hostile to life.
> 
> Some people claim that since there are so many stars in the sky there just _has to be_ life elsewhere.
> 
> However, for instance, we have recently learned that almost 70% of those stars in the galaxy are cooler red dwarfs and that they are highly variable in energy output.  It is hard to produce life when the temeperature is 70 degrees one day and 370 degrees the next day, isn't it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually that is not true as the only places we have looked in the universe for life is within our solar system.  Meaning that 99.9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999  percent has not been looked at.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What we do see when we look into the sky is an universe that seems to be hostile to life.  Variable stars where life has no chance of evolving, tremendous life destroying radiation, vast coldness,  extreme chaos.  It goes on and on.
> 
> We have absolutely no proof life exist elsewhere.  Until (if ever) it is proven then we have absolutely nothing. Ziltch.  Nada.
> 
> Referencing the Star Trek episode where Cpt Kirk screws the green Orion sex slave doesn't count.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We see many many worlds where it CAN exist.
> 
> The number of such worlds grows every year. We do. It look in empty radiation soaked space between worlds.
> 
> yes we have no proof what we have is enormous probability hence we keep looking
> 
> willful ignorance does not count
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nothing about the suitability for life outside of this solar system is known
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> wrong
> 
> we already know there are many exo planets which are very suitable
> 
> we find new ones every year many sharing the same star system
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You know nothing, all you can do is repeat what you saw on Cosmos like a trained parrot
> 
> But carry on
> 
> Polly want a cracker
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As always I know more than you
> 
> Like in the conspiracy threads I crushed you in you strictly and exclusively read what suits your view and ignore everything  else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes indeed all Nazis know more than me.   Until we meet that is.
> 
> I'll drown you in Rabbi urine, I already have volunteers drinking coffee
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There are no nazis here.
> 
> In person or here you are out of your league.
> 
> When meeting in person you can onlty whine
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Says the Nazi.........................................
> 
> LOL what is my league?
> 
> Since you think you know
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No nazi said that and you are lying.
> 
> The peewee league.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Think you wanna go a round in the peewee league?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Already did you lost
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nah Apple, Google and Netflix are way up.
> 
> But you stay there and blame your ignorance on the Jews
> 
> You know like the obedient Nazi that you are
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are the only proven and self admitted nazi here
> I am less ignorant than you. Unlike you i learn so I can become less ignorant you revel in your ignorance and stupdiity
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
> 
> You ask your Mother for help with that?
> 
> Is it fun hating Jews so much that you name yourself Nazi?
> 
> Enjoy that hate, it's hardening your arteries now
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I never named myself that but you openly admitted to it
> 
> Yoiu are the only sewlf proclaimed anti semetic here.
> 
> I do not live in my moms basement like you kid
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No one cares what the local Nazi says kiddy.
> 
> Try learning to spell, or at least run a speghlign choker.
> 
> LOL ignorance is bliss
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thats why everyone ignores your little ignorant nazi ass
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Says the Nazi who lives in denial
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Says the self admitted nazi who lies when defeated in an argument
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Seriously dude, you are a Mossad agent or a wannabe Mossad agent who would never be noticed if he or she posted as a Nazi right?
> 
> Well so much for that plan kiddy, now go rock by the wall like the autistic kid you are
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Seriously boy the Mossad does not have such agents.
> 
> Yes you are done and defeated go run along and play world of war craft
> 
> Others want to discuss issues without your juvenile bullshit,
> 
> Its fun proving tyou wrong all the time but it gets old when you cry like a bitch afterward
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How does it feel to be exposed?
> 
> So you admit to knowing what kind of agents the Mossad has.  Tell us more doofy
> 
> Yawn
Click to expand...



You were exposed as an idiot. 

Only a fool would think the mossad or CIA would waste time in an obscure chat room

I did make yoiu look ignorant and stupid in the previous argument and you know it


----------



## esalla

Soupnazi630 said:


> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> All the evidence that we have says we are alone in the universe.
> 
> If anybody has any evidence to the contrary they haven't produced it yet.
> 
> If the universe is finite then there will unique things in it.  Life on earth may be unique.
> 
> The universe is a pretty hellish place for life.
> 
> 
> 
> That is not what all the evidence says.
> 
> It is true we have not found evidence of life yet but we are only barely getting a glimpse beyond are own world. What we do know is many many worlds exist beyond are own and we keep finding worlds CAPABLE of supporting life. As it turns out planets hospitable to life are common.
> 
> Combined with the math it is likely to the point of being a certainty that life exists on other worlds.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> We have absolutely no evidence that there is life on any place other than earth.  After many decades of serious research we have not been able to turn chemistry into biology in a lab.
> 
> The more we learn about earth and the more we learn about the rest of the cosmos the more learn that earth is not like other places.  The universe is very hostile to our understanding of life.
> 
> Statistics don't produce life. In order for any statistical probability to be valid we need more than one data point.  We only have one data point.  Until (if ever) we get another data we have absolutely nothing.
> 
> We have been brainwashed by 100 years of Science Fiction.  We are absolutely positive life exist elsewhere because we see it on TV and the movies and read about in books.  However, the scientific reality is much different.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So if you have never seen it, then it can not exist.
> 
> Ok kid, babble on
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I have never seen the giant turtle that everybody use to say carried the universe around on its back.  When I see it I will I will believe it.   Just because other people want to believe that the turtle exist don't make it a scientific fact.
> 
> We have absolutely no proof of life on anyplace other than earth and we can't produce life in a lab.  That makes life unique to earth until proven otherwise.
> 
> Show me the money!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> and once again we are only barely becoming to look .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The more we look the more we find out that the universe is hostile to life.
> 
> Some people claim that since there are so many stars in the sky there just _has to be_ life elsewhere.
> 
> However, for instance, we have recently learned that almost 70% of those stars in the galaxy are cooler red dwarfs and that they are highly variable in energy output.  It is hard to produce life when the temeperature is 70 degrees one day and 370 degrees the next day, isn't it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually that is not true as the only places we have looked in the universe for life is within our solar system.  Meaning that 99.9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999  percent has not been looked at.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What we do see when we look into the sky is an universe that seems to be hostile to life.  Variable stars where life has no chance of evolving, tremendous life destroying radiation, vast coldness,  extreme chaos.  It goes on and on.
> 
> We have absolutely no proof life exist elsewhere.  Until (if ever) it is proven then we have absolutely nothing. Ziltch.  Nada.
> 
> Referencing the Star Trek episode where Cpt Kirk screws the green Orion sex slave doesn't count.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We see many many worlds where it CAN exist.
> 
> The number of such worlds grows every year. We do. It look in empty radiation soaked space between worlds.
> 
> yes we have no proof what we have is enormous probability hence we keep looking
> 
> willful ignorance does not count
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nothing about the suitability for life outside of this solar system is known
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> wrong
> 
> we already know there are many exo planets which are very suitable
> 
> we find new ones every year many sharing the same star system
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You know nothing, all you can do is repeat what you saw on Cosmos like a trained parrot
> 
> But carry on
> 
> Polly want a cracker
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As always I know more than you
> 
> Like in the conspiracy threads I crushed you in you strictly and exclusively read what suits your view and ignore everything  else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes indeed all Nazis know more than me.   Until we meet that is.
> 
> I'll drown you in Rabbi urine, I already have volunteers drinking coffee
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There are no nazis here.
> 
> In person or here you are out of your league.
> 
> When meeting in person you can onlty whine
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Says the Nazi.........................................
> 
> LOL what is my league?
> 
> Since you think you know
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No nazi said that and you are lying.
> 
> The peewee league.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Think you wanna go a round in the peewee league?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Already did you lost
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nah Apple, Google and Netflix are way up.
> 
> But you stay there and blame your ignorance on the Jews
> 
> You know like the obedient Nazi that you are
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are the only proven and self admitted nazi here
> I am less ignorant than you. Unlike you i learn so I can become less ignorant you revel in your ignorance and stupdiity
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
> 
> You ask your Mother for help with that?
> 
> Is it fun hating Jews so much that you name yourself Nazi?
> 
> Enjoy that hate, it's hardening your arteries now
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I never named myself that but you openly admitted to it
> 
> Yoiu are the only sewlf proclaimed anti semetic here.
> 
> I do not live in my moms basement like you kid
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No one cares what the local Nazi says kiddy.
> 
> Try learning to spell, or at least run a speghlign choker.
> 
> LOL ignorance is bliss
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thats why everyone ignores your little ignorant nazi ass
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Says the Nazi who lives in denial
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Says the self admitted nazi who lies when defeated in an argument
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Seriously dude, you are a Mossad agent or a wannabe Mossad agent who would never be noticed if he or she posted as a Nazi right?
> 
> Well so much for that plan kiddy, now go rock by the wall like the autistic kid you are
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Seriously boy the Mossad does not have such agents.
> 
> Yes you are done and defeated go run along and play world of war craft
> 
> Others want to discuss issues without your juvenile bullshit,
> 
> Its fun proving tyou wrong all the time but it gets old when you cry like a bitch afterward
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How does it feel to be exposed?
> 
> So you admit to knowing what kind of agents the Mossad has.  Tell us more doofy
> 
> Yawn
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You were exposed as an idiot.
> 
> Only a fool would think the mossad or CIA would waste time in an obscure chat room
> 
> I did make yoiu look ignorant and stupid in the previous argument and you know it
Click to expand...

Actually Facebook was created by the NSA, and a Mossad agent will go anywhere or do anything to expose a Nazi, which clearly includes pretending to be one.

Yawn

You still rocking by the wall?


----------



## Soupnazi630

esalla said:


> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> All the evidence that we have says we are alone in the universe.
> 
> If anybody has any evidence to the contrary they haven't produced it yet.
> 
> If the universe is finite then there will unique things in it.  Life on earth may be unique.
> 
> The universe is a pretty hellish place for life.
> 
> 
> 
> That is not what all the evidence says.
> 
> It is true we have not found evidence of life yet but we are only barely getting a glimpse beyond are own world. What we do know is many many worlds exist beyond are own and we keep finding worlds CAPABLE of supporting life. As it turns out planets hospitable to life are common.
> 
> Combined with the math it is likely to the point of being a certainty that life exists on other worlds.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> We have absolutely no evidence that there is life on any place other than earth.  After many decades of serious research we have not been able to turn chemistry into biology in a lab.
> 
> The more we learn about earth and the more we learn about the rest of the cosmos the more learn that earth is not like other places.  The universe is very hostile to our understanding of life.
> 
> Statistics don't produce life. In order for any statistical probability to be valid we need more than one data point.  We only have one data point.  Until (if ever) we get another data we have absolutely nothing.
> 
> We have been brainwashed by 100 years of Science Fiction.  We are absolutely positive life exist elsewhere because we see it on TV and the movies and read about in books.  However, the scientific reality is much different.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So if you have never seen it, then it can not exist.
> 
> Ok kid, babble on
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I have never seen the giant turtle that everybody use to say carried the universe around on its back.  When I see it I will I will believe it.   Just because other people want to believe that the turtle exist don't make it a scientific fact.
> 
> We have absolutely no proof of life on anyplace other than earth and we can't produce life in a lab.  That makes life unique to earth until proven otherwise.
> 
> Show me the money!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> and once again we are only barely becoming to look .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The more we look the more we find out that the universe is hostile to life.
> 
> Some people claim that since there are so many stars in the sky there just _has to be_ life elsewhere.
> 
> However, for instance, we have recently learned that almost 70% of those stars in the galaxy are cooler red dwarfs and that they are highly variable in energy output.  It is hard to produce life when the temeperature is 70 degrees one day and 370 degrees the next day, isn't it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually that is not true as the only places we have looked in the universe for life is within our solar system.  Meaning that 99.9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999  percent has not been looked at.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What we do see when we look into the sky is an universe that seems to be hostile to life.  Variable stars where life has no chance of evolving, tremendous life destroying radiation, vast coldness,  extreme chaos.  It goes on and on.
> 
> We have absolutely no proof life exist elsewhere.  Until (if ever) it is proven then we have absolutely nothing. Ziltch.  Nada.
> 
> Referencing the Star Trek episode where Cpt Kirk screws the green Orion sex slave doesn't count.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We see many many worlds where it CAN exist.
> 
> The number of such worlds grows every year. We do. It look in empty radiation soaked space between worlds.
> 
> yes we have no proof what we have is enormous probability hence we keep looking
> 
> willful ignorance does not count
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nothing about the suitability for life outside of this solar system is known
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> wrong
> 
> we already know there are many exo planets which are very suitable
> 
> we find new ones every year many sharing the same star system
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You know nothing, all you can do is repeat what you saw on Cosmos like a trained parrot
> 
> But carry on
> 
> Polly want a cracker
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As always I know more than you
> 
> Like in the conspiracy threads I crushed you in you strictly and exclusively read what suits your view and ignore everything  else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes indeed all Nazis know more than me.   Until we meet that is.
> 
> I'll drown you in Rabbi urine, I already have volunteers drinking coffee
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There are no nazis here.
> 
> In person or here you are out of your league.
> 
> When meeting in person you can onlty whine
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Says the Nazi.........................................
> 
> LOL what is my league?
> 
> Since you think you know
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No nazi said that and you are lying.
> 
> The peewee league.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Think you wanna go a round in the peewee league?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Already did you lost
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nah Apple, Google and Netflix are way up.
> 
> But you stay there and blame your ignorance on the Jews
> 
> You know like the obedient Nazi that you are
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are the only proven and self admitted nazi here
> I am less ignorant than you. Unlike you i learn so I can become less ignorant you revel in your ignorance and stupdiity
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
> 
> You ask your Mother for help with that?
> 
> Is it fun hating Jews so much that you name yourself Nazi?
> 
> Enjoy that hate, it's hardening your arteries now
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I never named myself that but you openly admitted to it
> 
> Yoiu are the only sewlf proclaimed anti semetic here.
> 
> I do not live in my moms basement like you kid
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No one cares what the local Nazi says kiddy.
> 
> Try learning to spell, or at least run a speghlign choker.
> 
> LOL ignorance is bliss
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thats why everyone ignores your little ignorant nazi ass
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Says the Nazi who lives in denial
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Says the self admitted nazi who lies when defeated in an argument
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Seriously dude, you are a Mossad agent or a wannabe Mossad agent who would never be noticed if he or she posted as a Nazi right?
> 
> Well so much for that plan kiddy, now go rock by the wall like the autistic kid you are
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Seriously boy the Mossad does not have such agents.
> 
> Yes you are done and defeated go run along and play world of war craft
> 
> Others want to discuss issues without your juvenile bullshit,
> 
> Its fun proving tyou wrong all the time but it gets old when you cry like a bitch afterward
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How does it feel to be exposed?
> 
> So you admit to knowing what kind of agents the Mossad has.  Tell us more doofy
> 
> Yawn
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You were exposed as an idiot.
> 
> Only a fool would think the mossad or CIA would waste time in an obscure chat room
> 
> I did make yoiu look ignorant and stupid in the previous argument and you know it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually Facebook was created by the NSA, and a Mossad agent will go anywhere or do anything to expose a Nazi, which clearly includes pretending to be one.
> 
> Yawn
> 
> You still rocking by the wall?
Click to expand...

Wrong

FAcebook was created by Zuckerberg and no the mossad has no such time to waste 

You really are as clueless about the world as you are the Kennedy assassination and science


----------



## esalla

Soupnazi630 said:


> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> All the evidence that we have says we are alone in the universe.
> 
> If anybody has any evidence to the contrary they haven't produced it yet.
> 
> If the universe is finite then there will unique things in it.  Life on earth may be unique.
> 
> The universe is a pretty hellish place for life.
> 
> 
> 
> That is not what all the evidence says.
> 
> It is true we have not found evidence of life yet but we are only barely getting a glimpse beyond are own world. What we do know is many many worlds exist beyond are own and we keep finding worlds CAPABLE of supporting life. As it turns out planets hospitable to life are common.
> 
> Combined with the math it is likely to the point of being a certainty that life exists on other worlds.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> We have absolutely no evidence that there is life on any place other than earth.  After many decades of serious research we have not been able to turn chemistry into biology in a lab.
> 
> The more we learn about earth and the more we learn about the rest of the cosmos the more learn that earth is not like other places.  The universe is very hostile to our understanding of life.
> 
> Statistics don't produce life. In order for any statistical probability to be valid we need more than one data point.  We only have one data point.  Until (if ever) we get another data we have absolutely nothing.
> 
> We have been brainwashed by 100 years of Science Fiction.  We are absolutely positive life exist elsewhere because we see it on TV and the movies and read about in books.  However, the scientific reality is much different.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So if you have never seen it, then it can not exist.
> 
> Ok kid, babble on
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I have never seen the giant turtle that everybody use to say carried the universe around on its back.  When I see it I will I will believe it.   Just because other people want to believe that the turtle exist don't make it a scientific fact.
> 
> We have absolutely no proof of life on anyplace other than earth and we can't produce life in a lab.  That makes life unique to earth until proven otherwise.
> 
> Show me the money!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> and once again we are only barely becoming to look .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The more we look the more we find out that the universe is hostile to life.
> 
> Some people claim that since there are so many stars in the sky there just _has to be_ life elsewhere.
> 
> However, for instance, we have recently learned that almost 70% of those stars in the galaxy are cooler red dwarfs and that they are highly variable in energy output.  It is hard to produce life when the temeperature is 70 degrees one day and 370 degrees the next day, isn't it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually that is not true as the only places we have looked in the universe for life is within our solar system.  Meaning that 99.9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999  percent has not been looked at.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What we do see when we look into the sky is an universe that seems to be hostile to life.  Variable stars where life has no chance of evolving, tremendous life destroying radiation, vast coldness,  extreme chaos.  It goes on and on.
> 
> We have absolutely no proof life exist elsewhere.  Until (if ever) it is proven then we have absolutely nothing. Ziltch.  Nada.
> 
> Referencing the Star Trek episode where Cpt Kirk screws the green Orion sex slave doesn't count.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We see many many worlds where it CAN exist.
> 
> The number of such worlds grows every year. We do. It look in empty radiation soaked space between worlds.
> 
> yes we have no proof what we have is enormous probability hence we keep looking
> 
> willful ignorance does not count
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nothing about the suitability for life outside of this solar system is known
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> wrong
> 
> we already know there are many exo planets which are very suitable
> 
> we find new ones every year many sharing the same star system
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You know nothing, all you can do is repeat what you saw on Cosmos like a trained parrot
> 
> But carry on
> 
> Polly want a cracker
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As always I know more than you
> 
> Like in the conspiracy threads I crushed you in you strictly and exclusively read what suits your view and ignore everything  else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes indeed all Nazis know more than me.   Until we meet that is.
> 
> I'll drown you in Rabbi urine, I already have volunteers drinking coffee
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There are no nazis here.
> 
> In person or here you are out of your league.
> 
> When meeting in person you can onlty whine
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Says the Nazi.........................................
> 
> LOL what is my league?
> 
> Since you think you know
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No nazi said that and you are lying.
> 
> The peewee league.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Think you wanna go a round in the peewee league?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Already did you lost
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nah Apple, Google and Netflix are way up.
> 
> But you stay there and blame your ignorance on the Jews
> 
> You know like the obedient Nazi that you are
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are the only proven and self admitted nazi here
> I am less ignorant than you. Unlike you i learn so I can become less ignorant you revel in your ignorance and stupdiity
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
> 
> You ask your Mother for help with that?
> 
> Is it fun hating Jews so much that you name yourself Nazi?
> 
> Enjoy that hate, it's hardening your arteries now
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I never named myself that but you openly admitted to it
> 
> Yoiu are the only sewlf proclaimed anti semetic here.
> 
> I do not live in my moms basement like you kid
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No one cares what the local Nazi says kiddy.
> 
> Try learning to spell, or at least run a speghlign choker.
> 
> LOL ignorance is bliss
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thats why everyone ignores your little ignorant nazi ass
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Says the Nazi who lives in denial
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Says the self admitted nazi who lies when defeated in an argument
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Seriously dude, you are a Mossad agent or a wannabe Mossad agent who would never be noticed if he or she posted as a Nazi right?
> 
> Well so much for that plan kiddy, now go rock by the wall like the autistic kid you are
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Seriously boy the Mossad does not have such agents.
> 
> Yes you are done and defeated go run along and play world of war craft
> 
> Others want to discuss issues without your juvenile bullshit,
> 
> Its fun proving tyou wrong all the time but it gets old when you cry like a bitch afterward
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How does it feel to be exposed?
> 
> So you admit to knowing what kind of agents the Mossad has.  Tell us more doofy
> 
> Yawn
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You were exposed as an idiot.
> 
> Only a fool would think the mossad or CIA would waste time in an obscure chat room
> 
> I did make yoiu look ignorant and stupid in the previous argument and you know it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually Facebook was created by the NSA, and a Mossad agent will go anywhere or do anything to expose a Nazi, which clearly includes pretending to be one.
> 
> Yawn
> 
> You still rocking by the wall?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong
> 
> FAcebook was created by Zuckerberg and no the mossad has no such time to waste
> 
> You really are as clueless about the world as you are the Kennedy assassination and science
Click to expand...

LOL tell us more about how the Mossad operates Abe









						How the NSA & FBI made Facebook the perfect mass surveillance tool
					

The National Security Agency and the FBI teamed up in October 2010 to develop techniques for turning Facebook into a surveillance tool.




					venturebeat.com
				












						Where does Facebook stop and the NSA begin? Bueller? Bueller?
					

If you're worried about Orwellian overreach, stop posting selfies.




					www.motherjones.com


----------



## esalla

Likkmee said:


> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wro
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> All the evidence that we have says we are alone in the universe.
> 
> If anybody has any evidence to the contrary they haven't produced it yet.
> 
> If the universe is finite then there will unique things in it.  Life on earth may be unique.
> 
> The universe is a pretty hellish place for life.
> 
> 
> 
> That is not what all the evidence says.
> 
> It is true we have not found evidence of life yet but we are only barely getting a glimpse beyond are own world. What we do know is many many worlds exist beyond are own and we keep finding worlds CAPABLE of supporting life. As it turns out planets hospitable to life are common.
> 
> Combined with the math it is likely to the point of being a certainty that life exists on other worlds.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> We have absolutely no evidence that there is life on any place other than earth.  After many decades of serious research we have not been able to turn chemistry into biology in a lab.
> 
> The more we learn about earth and the more we learn about the rest of the cosmos the more learn that earth is not like other places.  The universe is very hostile to our understanding of life.
> 
> Statistics don't produce life. In order for any statistical probability to be valid we need more than one data point.  We only have one data point.  Until (if ever) we get another data we have absolutely nothing.
> 
> We have been brainwashed by 100 years of Science Fiction.  We are absolutely positive life exist elsewhere because we see it on TV and the movies and read about in books.  However, the scientific reality is much different.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So if you have never seen it, then it can not exist.
> 
> Ok kid, babble on
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I have never seen the giant turtle that everybody use to say carried the universe around on its back.  When I see it I will I will believe it.   Just because other people want to believe that the turtle exist don't make it a scientific fact.
> 
> We have absolutely no proof of life on anyplace other than earth and we can't produce life in a lab.  That makes life unique to earth until proven otherwise.
> 
> Show me the money!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> and once again we are only barely becoming to look .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The more we look the more we find out that the universe is hostile to life.
> 
> Some people claim that since there are so many stars in the sky there just _has to be_ life elsewhere.
> 
> However, for instance, we have recently learned that almost 70% of those stars in the galaxy are cooler red dwarfs and that they are highly variable in energy output.  It is hard to produce life when the temeperature is 70 degrees one day and 370 degrees the next day, isn't it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually that is not true as the only places we have looked in the universe for life is within our solar system.  Meaning that 99.9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999  percent has not been looked at.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We look for habitable planets and have found many inc!using some in our solar system
> 
> With so much unseen it is a near certainty
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL there is only one habitable planet in this solar system, though we might be able to tweak some form of life to live on Mars
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong
> 
> There are several
> 
> Get out of moms basement now and then and learn something
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually moms basement might be a good place to learn science in silence...... ? Or to to a Trump -Biden piss off and you'll know everything in a couple hours flat. Confirm on CCN/NBC/Hannutsy/Ingram . Then spend 3 days at Disney
Click to expand...

I have no idea what that meant, but I laughed so thanks


----------



## Soupnazi630

esalla said:


> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> All the evidence that we have says we are alone in the universe.
> 
> If anybody has any evidence to the contrary they haven't produced it yet.
> 
> If the universe is finite then there will unique things in it.  Life on earth may be unique.
> 
> The universe is a pretty hellish place for life.
> 
> 
> 
> That is not what all the evidence says.
> 
> It is true we have not found evidence of life yet but we are only barely getting a glimpse beyond are own world. What we do know is many many worlds exist beyond are own and we keep finding worlds CAPABLE of supporting life. As it turns out planets hospitable to life are common.
> 
> Combined with the math it is likely to the point of being a certainty that life exists on other worlds.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> We have absolutely no evidence that there is life on any place other than earth.  After many decades of serious research we have not been able to turn chemistry into biology in a lab.
> 
> The more we learn about earth and the more we learn about the rest of the cosmos the more learn that earth is not like other places.  The universe is very hostile to our understanding of life.
> 
> Statistics don't produce life. In order for any statistical probability to be valid we need more than one data point.  We only have one data point.  Until (if ever) we get another data we have absolutely nothing.
> 
> We have been brainwashed by 100 years of Science Fiction.  We are absolutely positive life exist elsewhere because we see it on TV and the movies and read about in books.  However, the scientific reality is much different.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So if you have never seen it, then it can not exist.
> 
> Ok kid, babble on
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I have never seen the giant turtle that everybody use to say carried the universe around on its back.  When I see it I will I will believe it.   Just because other people want to believe that the turtle exist don't make it a scientific fact.
> 
> We have absolutely no proof of life on anyplace other than earth and we can't produce life in a lab.  That makes life unique to earth until proven otherwise.
> 
> Show me the money!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> and once again we are only barely becoming to look .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The more we look the more we find out that the universe is hostile to life.
> 
> Some people claim that since there are so many stars in the sky there just _has to be_ life elsewhere.
> 
> However, for instance, we have recently learned that almost 70% of those stars in the galaxy are cooler red dwarfs and that they are highly variable in energy output.  It is hard to produce life when the temeperature is 70 degrees one day and 370 degrees the next day, isn't it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually that is not true as the only places we have looked in the universe for life is within our solar system.  Meaning that 99.9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999  percent has not been looked at.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What we do see when we look into the sky is an universe that seems to be hostile to life.  Variable stars where life has no chance of evolving, tremendous life destroying radiation, vast coldness,  extreme chaos.  It goes on and on.
> 
> We have absolutely no proof life exist elsewhere.  Until (if ever) it is proven then we have absolutely nothing. Ziltch.  Nada.
> 
> Referencing the Star Trek episode where Cpt Kirk screws the green Orion sex slave doesn't count.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We see many many worlds where it CAN exist.
> 
> The number of such worlds grows every year. We do. It look in empty radiation soaked space between worlds.
> 
> yes we have no proof what we have is enormous probability hence we keep looking
> 
> willful ignorance does not count
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nothing about the suitability for life outside of this solar system is known
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> wrong
> 
> we already know there are many exo planets which are very suitable
> 
> we find new ones every year many sharing the same star system
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You know nothing, all you can do is repeat what you saw on Cosmos like a trained parrot
> 
> But carry on
> 
> Polly want a cracker
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As always I know more than you
> 
> Like in the conspiracy threads I crushed you in you strictly and exclusively read what suits your view and ignore everything  else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes indeed all Nazis know more than me.   Until we meet that is.
> 
> I'll drown you in Rabbi urine, I already have volunteers drinking coffee
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There are no nazis here.
> 
> In person or here you are out of your league.
> 
> When meeting in person you can onlty whine
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Says the Nazi.........................................
> 
> LOL what is my league?
> 
> Since you think you know
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No nazi said that and you are lying.
> 
> The peewee league.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Think you wanna go a round in the peewee league?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Already did you lost
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nah Apple, Google and Netflix are way up.
> 
> But you stay there and blame your ignorance on the Jews
> 
> You know like the obedient Nazi that you are
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are the only proven and self admitted nazi here
> I am less ignorant than you. Unlike you i learn so I can become less ignorant you revel in your ignorance and stupdiity
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
> 
> You ask your Mother for help with that?
> 
> Is it fun hating Jews so much that you name yourself Nazi?
> 
> Enjoy that hate, it's hardening your arteries now
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I never named myself that but you openly admitted to it
> 
> Yoiu are the only sewlf proclaimed anti semetic here.
> 
> I do not live in my moms basement like you kid
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No one cares what the local Nazi says kiddy.
> 
> Try learning to spell, or at least run a speghlign choker.
> 
> LOL ignorance is bliss
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thats why everyone ignores your little ignorant nazi ass
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Says the Nazi who lives in denial
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Says the self admitted nazi who lies when defeated in an argument
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Seriously dude, you are a Mossad agent or a wannabe Mossad agent who would never be noticed if he or she posted as a Nazi right?
> 
> Well so much for that plan kiddy, now go rock by the wall like the autistic kid you are
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Seriously boy the Mossad does not have such agents.
> 
> Yes you are done and defeated go run along and play world of war craft
> 
> Others want to discuss issues without your juvenile bullshit,
> 
> Its fun proving tyou wrong all the time but it gets old when you cry like a bitch afterward
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How does it feel to be exposed?
> 
> So you admit to knowing what kind of agents the Mossad has.  Tell us more doofy
> 
> Yawn
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You were exposed as an idiot.
> 
> Only a fool would think the mossad or CIA would waste time in an obscure chat room
> 
> I did make yoiu look ignorant and stupid in the previous argument and you know it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually Facebook was created by the NSA, and a Mossad agent will go anywhere or do anything to expose a Nazi, which clearly includes pretending to be one.
> 
> Yawn
> 
> You still rocking by the wall?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong
> 
> FAcebook was created by Zuckerberg and no the mossad has no such time to waste
> 
> You really are as clueless about the world as you are the Kennedy assassination and science
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL tell us more about how the Mossad operates Abe
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How the NSA & FBI made Facebook the perfect mass surveillance tool
> 
> 
> The National Security Agency and the FBI teamed up in October 2010 to develop techniques for turning Facebook into a surveillance tool.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> venturebeat.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where does Facebook stop and the NSA begin? Bueller? Bueller?
> 
> 
> If you're worried about Orwellian overreach, stop posting selfies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.motherjones.com
Click to expand...

Thanks for proving my point.

Both links clearly state that facebook existed before the FBi or NSA thought of using them.

Tooo easy defeating the willfully ignorant


----------



## Soupnazi630

esalla said:


> Likkmee said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wro
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> All the evidence that we have says we are alone in the universe.
> 
> If anybody has any evidence to the contrary they haven't produced it yet.
> 
> If the universe is finite then there will unique things in it.  Life on earth may be unique.
> 
> The universe is a pretty hellish place for life.
> 
> 
> 
> That is not what all the evidence says.
> 
> It is true we have not found evidence of life yet but we are only barely getting a glimpse beyond are own world. What we do know is many many worlds exist beyond are own and we keep finding worlds CAPABLE of supporting life. As it turns out planets hospitable to life are common.
> 
> Combined with the math it is likely to the point of being a certainty that life exists on other worlds.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> We have absolutely no evidence that there is life on any place other than earth.  After many decades of serious research we have not been able to turn chemistry into biology in a lab.
> 
> The more we learn about earth and the more we learn about the rest of the cosmos the more learn that earth is not like other places.  The universe is very hostile to our understanding of life.
> 
> Statistics don't produce life. In order for any statistical probability to be valid we need more than one data point.  We only have one data point.  Until (if ever) we get another data we have absolutely nothing.
> 
> We have been brainwashed by 100 years of Science Fiction.  We are absolutely positive life exist elsewhere because we see it on TV and the movies and read about in books.  However, the scientific reality is much different.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So if you have never seen it, then it can not exist.
> 
> Ok kid, babble on
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I have never seen the giant turtle that everybody use to say carried the universe around on its back.  When I see it I will I will believe it.   Just because other people want to believe that the turtle exist don't make it a scientific fact.
> 
> We have absolutely no proof of life on anyplace other than earth and we can't produce life in a lab.  That makes life unique to earth until proven otherwise.
> 
> Show me the money!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> and once again we are only barely becoming to look .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The more we look the more we find out that the universe is hostile to life.
> 
> Some people claim that since there are so many stars in the sky there just _has to be_ life elsewhere.
> 
> However, for instance, we have recently learned that almost 70% of those stars in the galaxy are cooler red dwarfs and that they are highly variable in energy output.  It is hard to produce life when the temeperature is 70 degrees one day and 370 degrees the next day, isn't it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually that is not true as the only places we have looked in the universe for life is within our solar system.  Meaning that 99.9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999  percent has not been looked at.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We look for habitable planets and have found many inc!using some in our solar system
> 
> With so much unseen it is a near certainty
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL there is only one habitable planet in this solar system, though we might be able to tweak some form of life to live on Mars
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong
> 
> There are several
> 
> Get out of moms basement now and then and learn something
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually moms basement might be a good place to learn science in silence...... ? Or to to a Trump -Biden piss off and you'll know everything in a couple hours flat. Confirm on CCN/NBC/Hannutsy/Ingram . Then spend 3 days at Disney
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have no idea what that meant, but I laughed so thanks
Click to expand...

You didnt laugh

You grew pissed off like the little brat you are


----------



## esalla

Soupnazi630 said:


> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Likkmee said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wro
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> All the evidence that we have says we are alone in the universe.
> 
> If anybody has any evidence to the contrary they haven't produced it yet.
> 
> If the universe is finite then there will unique things in it.  Life on earth may be unique.
> 
> The universe is a pretty hellish place for life.
> 
> 
> 
> That is not what all the evidence says.
> 
> It is true we have not found evidence of life yet but we are only barely getting a glimpse beyond are own world. What we do know is many many worlds exist beyond are own and we keep finding worlds CAPABLE of supporting life. As it turns out planets hospitable to life are common.
> 
> Combined with the math it is likely to the point of being a certainty that life exists on other worlds.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> We have absolutely no evidence that there is life on any place other than earth.  After many decades of serious research we have not been able to turn chemistry into biology in a lab.
> 
> The more we learn about earth and the more we learn about the rest of the cosmos the more learn that earth is not like other places.  The universe is very hostile to our understanding of life.
> 
> Statistics don't produce life. In order for any statistical probability to be valid we need more than one data point.  We only have one data point.  Until (if ever) we get another data we have absolutely nothing.
> 
> We have been brainwashed by 100 years of Science Fiction.  We are absolutely positive life exist elsewhere because we see it on TV and the movies and read about in books.  However, the scientific reality is much different.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So if you have never seen it, then it can not exist.
> 
> Ok kid, babble on
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I have never seen the giant turtle that everybody use to say carried the universe around on its back.  When I see it I will I will believe it.   Just because other people want to believe that the turtle exist don't make it a scientific fact.
> 
> We have absolutely no proof of life on anyplace other than earth and we can't produce life in a lab.  That makes life unique to earth until proven otherwise.
> 
> Show me the money!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> and once again we are only barely becoming to look .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The more we look the more we find out that the universe is hostile to life.
> 
> Some people claim that since there are so many stars in the sky there just _has to be_ life elsewhere.
> 
> However, for instance, we have recently learned that almost 70% of those stars in the galaxy are cooler red dwarfs and that they are highly variable in energy output.  It is hard to produce life when the temeperature is 70 degrees one day and 370 degrees the next day, isn't it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually that is not true as the only places we have looked in the universe for life is within our solar system.  Meaning that 99.9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999  percent has not been looked at.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We look for habitable planets and have found many inc!using some in our solar system
> 
> With so much unseen it is a near certainty
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL there is only one habitable planet in this solar system, though we might be able to tweak some form of life to live on Mars
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong
> 
> There are several
> 
> Get out of moms basement now and then and learn something
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually moms basement might be a good place to learn science in silence...... ? Or to to a Trump -Biden piss off and you'll know everything in a couple hours flat. Confirm on CCN/NBC/Hannutsy/Ingram . Then spend 3 days at Disney
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have no idea what that meant, but I laughed so thanks
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You didnt laugh
> 
> You grew pissed off like the little brat you are
Click to expand...


כן אייב אם אתה אומר זאת, ילד.

המשיכו לחגוג \ תחגגו

נ.ב. אני צוחק בהיסטריה על סוכן המוסד החשוף


----------



## Soupnazi630

esalla said:


> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Likkmee said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wro
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> All the evidence that we have says we are alone in the universe.
> 
> If anybody has any evidence to the contrary they haven't produced it yet.
> 
> If the universe is finite then there will unique things in it.  Life on earth may be unique.
> 
> The universe is a pretty hellish place for life.
> 
> 
> 
> That is not what all the evidence says.
> 
> It is true we have not found evidence of life yet but we are only barely getting a glimpse beyond are own world. What we do know is many many worlds exist beyond are own and we keep finding worlds CAPABLE of supporting life. As it turns out planets hospitable to life are common.
> 
> Combined with the math it is likely to the point of being a certainty that life exists on other worlds.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> We have absolutely no evidence that there is life on any place other than earth.  After many decades of serious research we have not been able to turn chemistry into biology in a lab.
> 
> The more we learn about earth and the more we learn about the rest of the cosmos the more learn that earth is not like other places.  The universe is very hostile to our understanding of life.
> 
> Statistics don't produce life. In order for any statistical probability to be valid we need more than one data point.  We only have one data point.  Until (if ever) we get another data we have absolutely nothing.
> 
> We have been brainwashed by 100 years of Science Fiction.  We are absolutely positive life exist elsewhere because we see it on TV and the movies and read about in books.  However, the scientific reality is much different.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So if you have never seen it, then it can not exist.
> 
> Ok kid, babble on
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I have never seen the giant turtle that everybody use to say carried the universe around on its back.  When I see it I will I will believe it.   Just because other people want to believe that the turtle exist don't make it a scientific fact.
> 
> We have absolutely no proof of life on anyplace other than earth and we can't produce life in a lab.  That makes life unique to earth until proven otherwise.
> 
> Show me the money!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> and once again we are only barely becoming to look .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The more we look the more we find out that the universe is hostile to life.
> 
> Some people claim that since there are so many stars in the sky there just _has to be_ life elsewhere.
> 
> However, for instance, we have recently learned that almost 70% of those stars in the galaxy are cooler red dwarfs and that they are highly variable in energy output.  It is hard to produce life when the temeperature is 70 degrees one day and 370 degrees the next day, isn't it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually that is not true as the only places we have looked in the universe for life is within our solar system.  Meaning that 99.9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999  percent has not been looked at.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We look for habitable planets and have found many inc!using some in our solar system
> 
> With so much unseen it is a near certainty
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL there is only one habitable planet in this solar system, though we might be able to tweak some form of life to live on Mars
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong
> 
> There are several
> 
> Get out of moms basement now and then and learn something
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually moms basement might be a good place to learn science in silence...... ? Or to to a Trump -Biden piss off and you'll know everything in a couple hours flat. Confirm on CCN/NBC/Hannutsy/Ingram . Then spend 3 days at Disney
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have no idea what that meant, but I laughed so thanks
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You didnt laugh
> 
> You grew pissed off like the little brat you are
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> כן אייב אם אתה אומר זאת, ילד.
> 
> המשיכו לחגוג \ תחגגו
Click to expand...


Very good when embarrassed and proven to look foolish respond with gibberish .

Your standard MO


----------



## Grumblenuts

GLASNOST said:


> learn what non-belief and dis-belief mean.


So just keep attacking the messenger? That's it? Pretty obvious now that if you'd had any serious rebuttal you'd have offered one by now.. Here, son. You must remember Slick Willy? Good. Read a little.. Learn a lot..


> Carter lists a number of grievances supposedly showing that religion in our country is experiencing "trivialization." His very ﬁrst example? That a "disgruntled reader" dared to write a national magazine complaining when it devoted a cover story to "an investigation of prayer." (Pass the smelling salts--an atheist got a letter to the editor printed!)
> 
> This is very revealing, for it is typical of Carter's apparent paranoia over any rational criticism of religion, even by _one individual_ complaining about the uncritical promotion of prayer by a major newsweekly.   Apparently this letter of complaint should have been censored by the newsweekly, out of deference to sensitive religious feelings. The obvious never occurs to Carter, that this cover story, and many others like it, are actually evidence of insensitive *cultural bias against freethought and in favor of religion. Carter reacts like most religionists: he is threatened by the very existence of individuals who use reason in analyzing religion. *


Don't look now, but that sounds just like you, honey.


----------



## Grumblenuts

GLASNOST said:


> You do not understand the difference between *“non-believing”* and *“dis-believing”.* You think they are synonymous


LOL. Admit it, you'll never quite git round to 'splainin it all to me,.. not just the supposed difference, but the significance as well,.. now will you son? Like most, you're just here to personally attack and run away.  That's okay. Relax, you're light years from being the first to admit they'd never actually thought it all through before..




__





						Unbelief: An Ignored Perspective by Patricia Smith King, Ph.D. (August 1994) - Freedom From Religion Foundation
					

"Unbelief, . . . is primarily the rejection of belief in miracles and divine revelation, in life after death, and in any supernatural beings--gods, de...




					ffrf.org


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are no theories that aliens did not happen.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First, we define aliens as intelligent aliens.  We're not discussing just outer space abiogenesis.  We have Drake's Equation, Fermi's Paradox, The Great Filter, and other arguments against it.  The fine tuning facts prevent abiogenesis, so it becomes a big reason for no aliens.
> 
> Furthermore, the Bible does not state God created aliens nor Jesus died to save aliens.  The hard evidence is none has been found despite SETI, optical SETI, Alien Telescope Array, space explorations and fly bys with probes and powerful telescopes.  There are other methods of contact which have been explored, but still nothing.
> 
> The atheist scientists such a Neil deGrasse Tyson and Stephen Hawking still think they exist, but no evidence for them.  Hawking has died not knowing aliens exist like Carl Sagan.  deGrasse Tyson will die without knowing, too, and he says sometimes it keeps him up at night thinking about how science can help find them.  Other top scientists who believed in the possibility of aliens and have died without knowing are Albert Einstein, Nikola Tesla, and Richard Feynman.
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The fact that we are here proves abiogenesis happens
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It also proves God is the creator.  More evidence for God than abiogenesis or aliens because we found a book that explains step-by-step how it happened.  Atheists still have vast universe and top scientists who believe in it, but they have all died without ever knowing aliens or abiogenesis.  Creation scientists and I believe the vast universe demonstrates the beauty, complexity, and glory of God instead.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Please identify where Fermi's Paradox, Drake's Equation, The Great Filter, and your nonsensical “fine tuning facts” presents any evidence for or against alien life.
> 
> Please support your nonsense claim about some “fine tuning” you claim exist. Please supply peer reviewed evidence that a) supports your version of the gods, and then, b) supporting evidence that your gods have a supernatural hand in the workings of the universe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You been supplied with it many times, but just can't get it through the thickness.
> 
> Obviously, it's your side's claim and so need to produce the aliens and evidence of abiogenesis.  That would show the atheist scientists were right and victory is yours.
> 
> Until then, the victory goes to the fine tuning side.  I will give you this as ID has passed peer review just to tweak your nose some more -- https://www.breakpoint.org/intelligent-design-passes-peer-review/.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Encyclopedia of American Loons
> 
> 
> It’s … The Encyclopedia of American loons! Our new and exciting series presenting a representative sample of American loons from A-Z.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> americanloons.blogspot.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Charles “Chuck” Wendell Colson is a Christian leader, cultural commentator, and author of lots of book books, several of which have been recognized with ECPA Christian Book Awards. Colson was a former Special Counsel for President Richard Nixon from 1969 to 1973 and the first member of the Nixon administration to be incarcerated for Watergate-related charges (he was named as one of the Watergate Seven). He was never charged with or convicted of anything related to that, but did plead guilty to obstruction of justice in another case and served seven months of a one-to-three year sentence in Alabama's Maxwell Prison. He is also a Templeton foundation recipient and winner of a number of awards, among them honorary doctorates from you-know-what-kind-of institutions, and the Others Award from the Salvation Army (you might want to look up the list of previous winners here. He's also a member of the Family (more here).
> 
> He also maintains several media channels which discuss contemporary issues from an evangelical Christian worldview, his own views usually being conservative interpretation of evangelical Christianity. He zealously opposes same-sex marriage, argues that Darwinism is used to attack Christianity, and that the Enron accounting scandals were a consequence of secularism. He is, in short, a hard-core creationist repeating Discovery Institute lies - claiming Darwinism helped cause forced sterilizations by eugenicists – and a steadfast anti-abortionist, claiming that abortion is the real cause of illegal immigration by creating a labor shortage due to "40 million sacrificed since 1973". He is also a steadfast proponent of the Bible Literacy Project's curriculum “The Bible and Its Influence” for public high school literature courses – a poorly disguised wedge trick.
> 
> There is much to choose from in Colson’s career. There is, for instance, his argument that the real causes of terrorism are pornography and abortion, and if only the US restricted the freedom of its citizens some more, terrorism would go away (I mean, the Taliban hates us for our freedom, don’t they? Take it away, and they wouldn’t hate us anymore).
> 
> Diagnosis: Deranged wingnut and blind zealot with no aptitude for truth or reason. Still pretty powerful and influential.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's strange where your rantings lead me sometimes.  I looked up what happened to Colson after your rant.
> 
> It's mostly a good biography for the man except for the last two paragraphs and "wedge trick."  Is it a wedge trick when he became Christian before going to trial and eventual prison?
> 
> 'When the Watergate scandal broke, Chuck found himself at the center of the storm as one of the "Watergate Seven." Under the pressure, Chuck retired into private life, but the threat of prosecution on Watergate-related charges still haunted him and his family.
> 
> At this critical moment, a close friend gave Chuck a copy of _Mere Christianity_, a book by popular British author C.S. Lewis that explores and defends the core beliefs of the Christian faith. The book sparked a series of conversations and encounters that led, finally, to Chuck's conversion.
> 
> "I spent an hour calling out to God," Chuck remembered in 2008, describing the night he spent sitting in his car, sobbing and praying. "I did not even know the right words. I simply knew that I wanted Him."'
> 
> After getting out, he founded the Prison Fellowship -- Watergate: The Glorious Defeat of Chuck Colson - Prison Fellowship.
> 
> Your argument is a biased blog site.  So much for your scientific reading cred.  Did you think it was an encyclopedia ?
> 
> We got American Liberal Loons and President and VP now.
Click to expand...

I understand you’re embarrassed that the leader of the cult you linked to is a convicted criminal. Such immoral behavior seems to be a common theme of so many fundie ministries.

Your hurt feelings about a “biased” site are your own to deal with. What part about the conviction and jailing of Colson is biased?


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are no theories that aliens did not happen.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First, we define aliens as intelligent aliens.  We're not discussing just outer space abiogenesis.  We have Drake's Equation, Fermi's Paradox, The Great Filter, and other arguments against it.  The fine tuning facts prevent abiogenesis, so it becomes a big reason for no aliens.
> 
> Furthermore, the Bible does not state God created aliens nor Jesus died to save aliens.  The hard evidence is none has been found despite SETI, optical SETI, Alien Telescope Array, space explorations and fly bys with probes and powerful telescopes.  There are other methods of contact which have been explored, but still nothing.
> 
> The atheist scientists such a Neil deGrasse Tyson and Stephen Hawking still think they exist, but no evidence for them.  Hawking has died not knowing aliens exist like Carl Sagan.  deGrasse Tyson will die without knowing, too, and he says sometimes it keeps him up at night thinking about how science can help find them.  Other top scientists who believed in the possibility of aliens and have died without knowing are Albert Einstein, Nikola Tesla, and Richard Feynman.
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The fact that we are here proves abiogenesis happens
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It also proves God is the creator.  More evidence for God than abiogenesis or aliens because we found a book that explains step-by-step how it happened.  Atheists still have vast universe and top scientists who believe in it, but they have all died without ever knowing aliens or abiogenesis.  Creation scientists and I believe the vast universe demonstrates the beauty, complexity, and glory of God instead.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Please identify where Fermi's Paradox, Drake's Equation, The Great Filter, and your nonsensical “fine tuning facts” presents any evidence for or against alien life.
> 
> Please support your nonsense claim about some “fine tuning” you claim exist. Please supply peer reviewed evidence that a) supports your version of the gods, and then, b) supporting evidence that your gods have a supernatural hand in the workings of the universe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You been supplied with it many times, but just can't get it through the thickness.
> 
> Obviously, it's your side's claim and so need to produce the aliens and evidence of abiogenesis.  That would show the atheist scientists were right and victory is yours.
> 
> Until then, the victory goes to the fine tuning side.  I will give you this as ID has passed peer review just to tweak your nose some more -- https://www.breakpoint.org/intelligent-design-passes-peer-review/.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Encyclopedia of American Loons
> 
> 
> It’s … The Encyclopedia of American loons! Our new and exciting series presenting a representative sample of American loons from A-Z.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> americanloons.blogspot.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Charles “Chuck” Wendell Colson is a Christian leader, cultural commentator, and author of lots of book books, several of which have been recognized with ECPA Christian Book Awards. Colson was a former Special Counsel for President Richard Nixon from 1969 to 1973 and the first member of the Nixon administration to be incarcerated for Watergate-related charges (he was named as one of the Watergate Seven). He was never charged with or convicted of anything related to that, but did plead guilty to obstruction of justice in another case and served seven months of a one-to-three year sentence in Alabama's Maxwell Prison. He is also a Templeton foundation recipient and winner of a number of awards, among them honorary doctorates from you-know-what-kind-of institutions, and the Others Award from the Salvation Army (you might want to look up the list of previous winners here. He's also a member of the Family (more here).
> 
> He also maintains several media channels which discuss contemporary issues from an evangelical Christian worldview, his own views usually being conservative interpretation of evangelical Christianity. He zealously opposes same-sex marriage, argues that Darwinism is used to attack Christianity, and that the Enron accounting scandals were a consequence of secularism. He is, in short, a hard-core creationist repeating Discovery Institute lies - claiming Darwinism helped cause forced sterilizations by eugenicists – and a steadfast anti-abortionist, claiming that abortion is the real cause of illegal immigration by creating a labor shortage due to "40 million sacrificed since 1973". He is also a steadfast proponent of the Bible Literacy Project's curriculum “The Bible and Its Influence” for public high school literature courses – a poorly disguised wedge trick.
> 
> There is much to choose from in Colson’s career. There is, for instance, his argument that the real causes of terrorism are pornography and abortion, and if only the US restricted the freedom of its citizens some more, terrorism would go away (I mean, the Taliban hates us for our freedom, don’t they? Take it away, and they wouldn’t hate us anymore).
> 
> Diagnosis: Deranged wingnut and blind zealot with no aptitude for truth or reason. Still pretty powerful and influential.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's strange where your rantings lead me sometimes.  I looked up what happened to Colson after your rant.
> 
> It's mostly a good biography for the man except for the last two paragraphs and "wedge trick."  Is it a wedge trick when he became Christian before going to trial and eventual prison?
> 
> 'When the Watergate scandal broke, Chuck found himself at the center of the storm as one of the "Watergate Seven." Under the pressure, Chuck retired into private life, but the threat of prosecution on Watergate-related charges still haunted him and his family.
> 
> At this critical moment, a close friend gave Chuck a copy of _Mere Christianity_, a book by popular British author C.S. Lewis that explores and defends the core beliefs of the Christian faith. The book sparked a series of conversations and encounters that led, finally, to Chuck's conversion.
> 
> "I spent an hour calling out to God," Chuck remembered in 2008, describing the night he spent sitting in his car, sobbing and praying. "I did not even know the right words. I simply knew that I wanted Him."'
> 
> After getting out, he founded the Prison Fellowship -- Watergate: The Glorious Defeat of Chuck Colson - Prison Fellowship.
> 
> Your argument is a biased blog site.  So much for your scientific reading cred.  Did you think it was an encyclopedia ?
> 
> We got American Liberal Loons and President and VP now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I understand you’re embarrassed that the leader of the cult you linked to is a convicted criminal. Such immoral behavior seems to be a common theme of so many fundie ministries.
> 
> Your hurt feelings about a “biased” site are your own to deal with. What part about the conviction and jailing of Colson is biased?
Click to expand...


You're right, Colson is a convicted criminal but he isn't the leader of _my_ cult.  Instead, I find that he changed in many ways after reading one book before being tried and convicted to be uplifting.  Maybe I should read more ID material.

Instead, it should be you who is embarrassed because you use a biased blog site as an encyclopedia.  That isn't a credible science document to show a proper argument.  

Here's what I've found in my early forays into ID because of your false accusations.  Now, we know that intelligent design has been peer reviewed and accepted as being scientific.  

First, its definition from the Discovery Institute:
"Intelligent Design: A scientific theory that holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause rather than undirected process such as natural selection._"_

"Recently, however, there have been several intelligent design peer-reviewed articles and studies published. A good number of these have been published in lesser-known or less prestigious circles, and quite a few have been published by overtly pro-design groups. Still, intelligent design peer-reviewed work is beginning to appear in more respected and established publications. A recent example, published in the _"Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington,"_ caused a controversy that demonstrated considerable hypocrisy.

The article is titled _"The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories."_ The conclusion of the article, in brief, is that design explains things that natural selection cannot. _Proceedings_ is a peer-reviewed publication. According to the then-editor, the three reviewers were all faculty members of respected universities and research institutions. The editor also stated that, while the reviewers did not agree with the conclusions, they found nothing scientifically invalid in the reasoning.

This example of an intelligent design peer-reviewed article was not embraced by the naturalistic crowd, but condemned. _Proceedings_ was attacked for publishing an article of "substandard science." Pro-evolutionists once claimed that a lack of intelligent design peer-reviewed work was due to a lack of credibility. Once such articles are published, however, they seem to question the entire peer-review process. Essentially, those who are entrenched into naturalistic thinking will only support peer review if it agrees with them. Many in the scientific community have made a plea for rational thinking, saying that no theory should be beyond questioning and any logical arguments must be considered. These pleas have mostly fallen on deaf ears."





__





						Intelligent Design Peer-Reviewed
					

Intelligent Design Peer-Reviewed - Real science? Objective studies supporting design theory are now more common, appearing more frequently in respected journals and publications.



					www.allaboutscience.org
				




Now, the tables have turned on you and it is you who is practicing lunacy as part of your science.


----------



## james bond

Grumblenuts said:


> James apparently believes that just name dropping scientific terms constitutes an argument for whatever he imagines he's arguing.
> "because of the discovery of chirality" - wtf?
> 
> "The building blocks of life are _proteins_. Amino acids are just the particles that form proteins, but it can't just happen randomly."
> Particles? - wtf? Enough of this!
> MedlinePlus - Trusted Health Information for You:
> 
> 
> 
> Amino acids are organic compounds that combine to form proteins. *Amino acids and proteins* are the building blocks of life.
Click to expand...


I beat you to it as I've already said many times *the building blocks of life are proteins*.  

As for particles, they constitute atoms, noble gases, _compounds_, and more.  Enough of you.  Get thee to a science book.  

You _missed_ the main point in that proteins can't happen randomly from loose amino acids because of chirality.  You are just another nut goober who believes in the fake science of abiogenesis.


----------



## Grumblenuts

james bond said:


> You _missed_ the main point in that proteins can't happen randomly


What's clear is that you must first deliberately "miss the point" by pretending "randomly" means whatever you wish. Sorry, it simply doesn't. Randomness, or better yet, probability, is obviously involved whether or not chirality limits its potential outcomes. Give it up. You have nothing.


----------



## Grumblenuts

james bond said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> James apparently believes that just name dropping scientific terms constitutes an argument for whatever he imagines he's arguing.
> "because of the discovery of chirality" - wtf?
> 
> "The building blocks of life are _proteins_. Amino acids are just the particles that form proteins, but it can't just happen randomly."
> Particles? - wtf? Enough of this!
> MedlinePlus - Trusted Health Information for You:
> 
> 
> 
> Amino acids are organic compounds that combine to form proteins. *Amino acids and proteins* are the building blocks of life.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I beat you to it as I've already said many times *the building blocks of life are proteins*.
Click to expand...

Read my lips, sparky. "*Amino acids and proteins* are *{both}* the building blocks of life." Like, _Duh!_


----------



## danielpalos

james bond said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> James apparently believes that just name dropping scientific terms constitutes an argument for whatever he imagines he's arguing.
> "because of the discovery of chirality" - wtf?
> 
> "The building blocks of life are _proteins_. Amino acids are just the particles that form proteins, but it can't just happen randomly."
> Particles? - wtf? Enough of this!
> MedlinePlus - Trusted Health Information for You:
> 
> 
> 
> Amino acids are organic compounds that combine to form proteins. *Amino acids and proteins* are the building blocks of life.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I beat you to it as I've already said many times *the building blocks of life are proteins*.
> 
> As for particles, they constitute atoms, noble gases, _compounds_, and more.  Enough of you.  Get thee to a science book.
> 
> You _missed_ the main point in that proteins can't happen randomly from loose amino acids because of chirality.  You are just another nut goober who believes in the fake science of abiogenesis.
Click to expand...

Why not after millions or billions of years of trial and error?

*Proteins* are essential nutrients for the human body.[1] They are one of the building blocks of body tissue and can also serve as a fuel source. As a fuel, proteins provide as much energy density as carbohydrates: 4 kcal (17 kJ) per gram; in contrast, lipids provide 9 kcal (37 kJ) per gram. The most important aspect and defining characteristic of protein from a nutritional standpoint is its amino acid composition.[2]--https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protein_(nutrient)

A *viral protein* is both a component and a product of a virus. Viral proteins are grouped according to their functions, and groups of viral proteins include structural proteins, nonstructural proteins, regulatory proteins, and accessory proteins.[1] Viruses are non-living and they do not have the means to reproduce on their own. They depend on their host cell's metabolism for energy, enzymes, and precursors, in order to reproduce. Thus, viruses do not code for many of their own viral proteins, and instead use the host cell's machinery to produce the viral proteins they require for replication.[2]--https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viral_protein

A virus is a small collection of genetic code, either DNA or RNA, surrounded by a protein coat. A virus cannot replicate alone. Viruses must infect cells and use components of the host cell to make copies of themselves. Often, they kill the host cell in the process, and cause damage to the host organism. Viruses have been found everywhere on Earth. Researchers estimate that viruses outnumber bacteria by 10 to 1. Because viruses don’t have the same components as bacteria, they cannot be killed by antibiotics; only antiviral medications or vaccines can eliminate or reduce the severity of viral diseases, including AIDS, COVID-19, measles and smallpox.--https://www.genome.gov/genetics-glossary/Virus

What if a virus has the possibility potential frontier to become a potentially intelligent life form?


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are no theories that aliens did not happen.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First, we define aliens as intelligent aliens.  We're not discussing just outer space abiogenesis.  We have Drake's Equation, Fermi's Paradox, The Great Filter, and other arguments against it.  The fine tuning facts prevent abiogenesis, so it becomes a big reason for no aliens.
> 
> Furthermore, the Bible does not state God created aliens nor Jesus died to save aliens.  The hard evidence is none has been found despite SETI, optical SETI, Alien Telescope Array, space explorations and fly bys with probes and powerful telescopes.  There are other methods of contact which have been explored, but still nothing.
> 
> The atheist scientists such a Neil deGrasse Tyson and Stephen Hawking still think they exist, but no evidence for them.  Hawking has died not knowing aliens exist like Carl Sagan.  deGrasse Tyson will die without knowing, too, and he says sometimes it keeps him up at night thinking about how science can help find them.  Other top scientists who believed in the possibility of aliens and have died without knowing are Albert Einstein, Nikola Tesla, and Richard Feynman.
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The fact that we are here proves abiogenesis happens
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It also proves God is the creator.  More evidence for God than abiogenesis or aliens because we found a book that explains step-by-step how it happened.  Atheists still have vast universe and top scientists who believe in it, but they have all died without ever knowing aliens or abiogenesis.  Creation scientists and I believe the vast universe demonstrates the beauty, complexity, and glory of God instead.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Please identify where Fermi's Paradox, Drake's Equation, The Great Filter, and your nonsensical “fine tuning facts” presents any evidence for or against alien life.
> 
> Please support your nonsense claim about some “fine tuning” you claim exist. Please supply peer reviewed evidence that a) supports your version of the gods, and then, b) supporting evidence that your gods have a supernatural hand in the workings of the universe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You been supplied with it many times, but just can't get it through the thickness.
> 
> Obviously, it's your side's claim and so need to produce the aliens and evidence of abiogenesis.  That would show the atheist scientists were right and victory is yours.
> 
> Until then, the victory goes to the fine tuning side.  I will give you this as ID has passed peer review just to tweak your nose some more -- https://www.breakpoint.org/intelligent-design-passes-peer-review/.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Encyclopedia of American Loons
> 
> 
> It’s … The Encyclopedia of American loons! Our new and exciting series presenting a representative sample of American loons from A-Z.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> americanloons.blogspot.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Charles “Chuck” Wendell Colson is a Christian leader, cultural commentator, and author of lots of book books, several of which have been recognized with ECPA Christian Book Awards. Colson was a former Special Counsel for President Richard Nixon from 1969 to 1973 and the first member of the Nixon administration to be incarcerated for Watergate-related charges (he was named as one of the Watergate Seven). He was never charged with or convicted of anything related to that, but did plead guilty to obstruction of justice in another case and served seven months of a one-to-three year sentence in Alabama's Maxwell Prison. He is also a Templeton foundation recipient and winner of a number of awards, among them honorary doctorates from you-know-what-kind-of institutions, and the Others Award from the Salvation Army (you might want to look up the list of previous winners here. He's also a member of the Family (more here).
> 
> He also maintains several media channels which discuss contemporary issues from an evangelical Christian worldview, his own views usually being conservative interpretation of evangelical Christianity. He zealously opposes same-sex marriage, argues that Darwinism is used to attack Christianity, and that the Enron accounting scandals were a consequence of secularism. He is, in short, a hard-core creationist repeating Discovery Institute lies - claiming Darwinism helped cause forced sterilizations by eugenicists – and a steadfast anti-abortionist, claiming that abortion is the real cause of illegal immigration by creating a labor shortage due to "40 million sacrificed since 1973". He is also a steadfast proponent of the Bible Literacy Project's curriculum “The Bible and Its Influence” for public high school literature courses – a poorly disguised wedge trick.
> 
> There is much to choose from in Colson’s career. There is, for instance, his argument that the real causes of terrorism are pornography and abortion, and if only the US restricted the freedom of its citizens some more, terrorism would go away (I mean, the Taliban hates us for our freedom, don’t they? Take it away, and they wouldn’t hate us anymore).
> 
> Diagnosis: Deranged wingnut and blind zealot with no aptitude for truth or reason. Still pretty powerful and influential.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's strange where your rantings lead me sometimes.  I looked up what happened to Colson after your rant.
> 
> It's mostly a good biography for the man except for the last two paragraphs and "wedge trick."  Is it a wedge trick when he became Christian before going to trial and eventual prison?
> 
> 'When the Watergate scandal broke, Chuck found himself at the center of the storm as one of the "Watergate Seven." Under the pressure, Chuck retired into private life, but the threat of prosecution on Watergate-related charges still haunted him and his family.
> 
> At this critical moment, a close friend gave Chuck a copy of _Mere Christianity_, a book by popular British author C.S. Lewis that explores and defends the core beliefs of the Christian faith. The book sparked a series of conversations and encounters that led, finally, to Chuck's conversion.
> 
> "I spent an hour calling out to God," Chuck remembered in 2008, describing the night he spent sitting in his car, sobbing and praying. "I did not even know the right words. I simply knew that I wanted Him."'
> 
> After getting out, he founded the Prison Fellowship -- Watergate: The Glorious Defeat of Chuck Colson - Prison Fellowship.
> 
> Your argument is a biased blog site.  So much for your scientific reading cred.  Did you think it was an encyclopedia ?
> 
> We got American Liberal Loons and President and VP now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I understand you’re embarrassed that the leader of the cult you linked to is a convicted criminal. Such immoral behavior seems to be a common theme of so many fundie ministries.
> 
> Your hurt feelings about a “biased” site are your own to deal with. What part about the conviction and jailing of Colson is biased?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're right, Colson is a convicted criminal but he isn't the leader of _my_ cult.  Instead, I find that he changed in many ways after reading one book before being tried and convicted to be uplifting.  Maybe I should read more ID material.
> 
> Instead, it should be you who is embarrassed because you use a biased blog site as an encyclopedia.  That isn't a credible science document to show a proper argument.
> 
> Here's what I've found in my early forays into ID because of your false accusations.  Now, we know that intelligent design has been peer reviewed and accepted as being scientific.
> 
> First, its definition from the Discovery Institute:
> "Intelligent Design: A scientific theory that holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause rather than undirected process such as natural selection._"_
> 
> "Recently, however, there have been several intelligent design peer-reviewed articles and studies published. A good number of these have been published in lesser-known or less prestigious circles, and quite a few have been published by overtly pro-design groups. Still, intelligent design peer-reviewed work is beginning to appear in more respected and established publications. A recent example, published in the _"Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington,"_ caused a controversy that demonstrated considerable hypocrisy.
> 
> The article is titled _"The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories."_ The conclusion of the article, in brief, is that design explains things that natural selection cannot. _Proceedings_ is a peer-reviewed publication. According to the then-editor, the three reviewers were all faculty members of respected universities and research institutions. The editor also stated that, while the reviewers did not agree with the conclusions, they found nothing scientifically invalid in the reasoning.
> 
> This example of an intelligent design peer-reviewed article was not embraced by the naturalistic crowd, but condemned. _Proceedings_ was attacked for publishing an article of "substandard science." Pro-evolutionists once claimed that a lack of intelligent design peer-reviewed work was due to a lack of credibility. Once such articles are published, however, they seem to question the entire peer-review process. Essentially, those who are entrenched into naturalistic thinking will only support peer review if it agrees with them. Many in the scientific community have made a plea for rational thinking, saying that no theory should be beyond questioning and any logical arguments must be considered. These pleas have mostly fallen on deaf ears."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Intelligent Design Peer-Reviewed
> 
> 
> Intelligent Design Peer-Reviewed - Real science? Objective studies supporting design theory are now more common, appearing more frequently in respected journals and publications.
> 
> 
> 
> www.allaboutscience.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now, the tables have turned on you and it is you who is practicing lunacy as part of your science.
Click to expand...


The site I linked to for the Colson criminal incarceration details causes you embarrassment. I can understand that. I had no intention of suggesting a convicted criminal heading a religious cult would present a rational science argument.

The paper you identified by Meyer is a rather laughable joke. It was critiqued here: Ryan Nichols, Scientific content, testability, and the vacuity of Intelligent Design theory The American Catholic philosophical quarterly, 2003 ,vol. 77 ,no 4 ,pp. 591 - 611

“_Meyer’s paper predictably follows the same pattern that has characterized “intelligent design” since its inception: deny the sufficiency of evolutionary processes to account for life’s history and diversity, then assert that an “intelligent designer” provides a better explanation. Although ID is discussed in the concluding section of the paper, there is no positive account of “intelligent design” presented, just as in all previous work on “intelligent design”. Just as a detective doesn’t have a case against someone without motive, means, and opportunity, ID doesn’t stand a scientific chance without some kind of model of what happened, how, and why. Only a reasonably detailed model could provide explanatory hypotheses that can be empirically tested. “An unknown intelligent designer did something, somewhere, somehow, for no apparent reason” is not a model.”_

What Meyer and all the hyper-religious charlatans fail to understand is that ID’iot creationism is not falsifiable and it creates many unresolved levels of contradiction. ID’iot creationism doesn’t resolve anything at all, i.e. it has no content. By ‘content’ I‘m speaking to a body of determinate principles. By ‘principles’ I‘m speaking to a proposition and an identifiable, logical series of events, circumstances and supportive data that are central to the theory.

There are only appeals to magic and supernaturalism central to ID’iot creationism. Two obvious questions to ask the supernaturalists are; 
a) what does ID‘iot creationism offer? And, 
b) what can ID‘iot creationism explain that evolution can’t?
Answer; 
  a) not much and,
  b) nothing

What the ID’iot creationers fail to understand is that biological evolution was and still is the only viable theory, consistent with the scientific method, that can explain how we get biological complexity from simplicity and biological diversity from uniformity.

The silly slogan “naturalistic thinking” comes right out of the Disco’tute. It’s typical for all of the ID’iot creationer charlatans to use such slogans. That is because the explanations offered by the fundie creation ministries are not explanations at all. They are appeals of last resorts to fear and superstition that hang on supernatural gods.


----------



## james bond

Grumblenuts said:


> Read my lips, sparky. "*Amino acids and proteins* are *{both}* the building blocks of life." Like, _Duh!_



You're deliberately trying to derail the topic of abiogenesis.  We aren't discussing nutrition.  For abiogenesis, one needs to have proteins.  No one is arguing there aren't amino acid _compounds_ out there, but there are no processes to randomly or have probability convert amino acids into proteins like our body does just from amino acids.  Their chirality prevents it.

BTW, you're wrong.  Proteins are the building blocks to life.  Amino acids just provide the energy from food to fuel the body to convert it to proteins.  Like duh yourself!


----------



## james bond

danielpalos said:


> Why not after millions or billions of years of trial and error?



As I understand it, it takes life to do the conversion.  If you don't have life, then you don't have conversion to proteins from the amino acids fuel.


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are no theories that aliens did not happen.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First, we define aliens as intelligent aliens.  We're not discussing just outer space abiogenesis.  We have Drake's Equation, Fermi's Paradox, The Great Filter, and other arguments against it.  The fine tuning facts prevent abiogenesis, so it becomes a big reason for no aliens.
> 
> Furthermore, the Bible does not state God created aliens nor Jesus died to save aliens.  The hard evidence is none has been found despite SETI, optical SETI, Alien Telescope Array, space explorations and fly bys with probes and powerful telescopes.  There are other methods of contact which have been explored, but still nothing.
> 
> The atheist scientists such a Neil deGrasse Tyson and Stephen Hawking still think they exist, but no evidence for them.  Hawking has died not knowing aliens exist like Carl Sagan.  deGrasse Tyson will die without knowing, too, and he says sometimes it keeps him up at night thinking about how science can help find them.  Other top scientists who believed in the possibility of aliens and have died without knowing are Albert Einstein, Nikola Tesla, and Richard Feynman.
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The fact that we are here proves abiogenesis happens
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It also proves God is the creator.  More evidence for God than abiogenesis or aliens because we found a book that explains step-by-step how it happened.  Atheists still have vast universe and top scientists who believe in it, but they have all died without ever knowing aliens or abiogenesis.  Creation scientists and I believe the vast universe demonstrates the beauty, complexity, and glory of God instead.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Please identify where Fermi's Paradox, Drake's Equation, The Great Filter, and your nonsensical “fine tuning facts” presents any evidence for or against alien life.
> 
> Please support your nonsense claim about some “fine tuning” you claim exist. Please supply peer reviewed evidence that a) supports your version of the gods, and then, b) supporting evidence that your gods have a supernatural hand in the workings of the universe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You been supplied with it many times, but just can't get it through the thickness.
> 
> Obviously, it's your side's claim and so need to produce the aliens and evidence of abiogenesis.  That would show the atheist scientists were right and victory is yours.
> 
> Until then, the victory goes to the fine tuning side.  I will give you this as ID has passed peer review just to tweak your nose some more -- https://www.breakpoint.org/intelligent-design-passes-peer-review/.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Encyclopedia of American Loons
> 
> 
> It’s … The Encyclopedia of American loons! Our new and exciting series presenting a representative sample of American loons from A-Z.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> americanloons.blogspot.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Charles “Chuck” Wendell Colson is a Christian leader, cultural commentator, and author of lots of book books, several of which have been recognized with ECPA Christian Book Awards. Colson was a former Special Counsel for President Richard Nixon from 1969 to 1973 and the first member of the Nixon administration to be incarcerated for Watergate-related charges (he was named as one of the Watergate Seven). He was never charged with or convicted of anything related to that, but did plead guilty to obstruction of justice in another case and served seven months of a one-to-three year sentence in Alabama's Maxwell Prison. He is also a Templeton foundation recipient and winner of a number of awards, among them honorary doctorates from you-know-what-kind-of institutions, and the Others Award from the Salvation Army (you might want to look up the list of previous winners here. He's also a member of the Family (more here).
> 
> He also maintains several media channels which discuss contemporary issues from an evangelical Christian worldview, his own views usually being conservative interpretation of evangelical Christianity. He zealously opposes same-sex marriage, argues that Darwinism is used to attack Christianity, and that the Enron accounting scandals were a consequence of secularism. He is, in short, a hard-core creationist repeating Discovery Institute lies - claiming Darwinism helped cause forced sterilizations by eugenicists – and a steadfast anti-abortionist, claiming that abortion is the real cause of illegal immigration by creating a labor shortage due to "40 million sacrificed since 1973". He is also a steadfast proponent of the Bible Literacy Project's curriculum “The Bible and Its Influence” for public high school literature courses – a poorly disguised wedge trick.
> 
> There is much to choose from in Colson’s career. There is, for instance, his argument that the real causes of terrorism are pornography and abortion, and if only the US restricted the freedom of its citizens some more, terrorism would go away (I mean, the Taliban hates us for our freedom, don’t they? Take it away, and they wouldn’t hate us anymore).
> 
> Diagnosis: Deranged wingnut and blind zealot with no aptitude for truth or reason. Still pretty powerful and influential.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's strange where your rantings lead me sometimes.  I looked up what happened to Colson after your rant.
> 
> It's mostly a good biography for the man except for the last two paragraphs and "wedge trick."  Is it a wedge trick when he became Christian before going to trial and eventual prison?
> 
> 'When the Watergate scandal broke, Chuck found himself at the center of the storm as one of the "Watergate Seven." Under the pressure, Chuck retired into private life, but the threat of prosecution on Watergate-related charges still haunted him and his family.
> 
> At this critical moment, a close friend gave Chuck a copy of _Mere Christianity_, a book by popular British author C.S. Lewis that explores and defends the core beliefs of the Christian faith. The book sparked a series of conversations and encounters that led, finally, to Chuck's conversion.
> 
> "I spent an hour calling out to God," Chuck remembered in 2008, describing the night he spent sitting in his car, sobbing and praying. "I did not even know the right words. I simply knew that I wanted Him."'
> 
> After getting out, he founded the Prison Fellowship -- Watergate: The Glorious Defeat of Chuck Colson - Prison Fellowship.
> 
> Your argument is a biased blog site.  So much for your scientific reading cred.  Did you think it was an encyclopedia ?
> 
> We got American Liberal Loons and President and VP now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I understand you’re embarrassed that the leader of the cult you linked to is a convicted criminal. Such immoral behavior seems to be a common theme of so many fundie ministries.
> 
> Your hurt feelings about a “biased” site are your own to deal with. What part about the conviction and jailing of Colson is biased?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're right, Colson is a convicted criminal but he isn't the leader of _my_ cult.  Instead, I find that he changed in many ways after reading one book before being tried and convicted to be uplifting.  Maybe I should read more ID material.
> 
> Instead, it should be you who is embarrassed because you use a biased blog site as an encyclopedia.  That isn't a credible science document to show a proper argument.
> 
> Here's what I've found in my early forays into ID because of your false accusations.  Now, we know that intelligent design has been peer reviewed and accepted as being scientific.
> 
> First, its definition from the Discovery Institute:
> "Intelligent Design: A scientific theory that holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause rather than undirected process such as natural selection._"_
> 
> "Recently, however, there have been several intelligent design peer-reviewed articles and studies published. A good number of these have been published in lesser-known or less prestigious circles, and quite a few have been published by overtly pro-design groups. Still, intelligent design peer-reviewed work is beginning to appear in more respected and established publications. A recent example, published in the _"Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington,"_ caused a controversy that demonstrated considerable hypocrisy.
> 
> The article is titled _"The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories."_ The conclusion of the article, in brief, is that design explains things that natural selection cannot. _Proceedings_ is a peer-reviewed publication. According to the then-editor, the three reviewers were all faculty members of respected universities and research institutions. The editor also stated that, while the reviewers did not agree with the conclusions, they found nothing scientifically invalid in the reasoning.
> 
> This example of an intelligent design peer-reviewed article was not embraced by the naturalistic crowd, but condemned. _Proceedings_ was attacked for publishing an article of "substandard science." Pro-evolutionists once claimed that a lack of intelligent design peer-reviewed work was due to a lack of credibility. Once such articles are published, however, they seem to question the entire peer-review process. Essentially, those who are entrenched into naturalistic thinking will only support peer review if it agrees with them. Many in the scientific community have made a plea for rational thinking, saying that no theory should be beyond questioning and any logical arguments must be considered. These pleas have mostly fallen on deaf ears."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Intelligent Design Peer-Reviewed
> 
> 
> Intelligent Design Peer-Reviewed - Real science? Objective studies supporting design theory are now more common, appearing more frequently in respected journals and publications.
> 
> 
> 
> www.allaboutscience.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now, the tables have turned on you and it is you who is practicing lunacy as part of your science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The site I linked to for the Colson criminal incarceration details causes you embarrassment. I can understand that. I had no intention of suggesting a convicted criminal heading a religious cult would present a rational science argument.
> 
> The paper you identified by Meyer is a rather laughable joke. It was critiqued here: Ryan Nichols, Scientific content, testability, and the vacuity of Intelligent Design theory The American Catholic philosophical quarterly, 2003 ,vol. 77 ,no 4 ,pp. 591 - 611
> 
> “_Meyer’s paper predictably follows the same pattern that has characterized “intelligent design” since its inception: deny the sufficiency of evolutionary processes to account for life’s history and diversity, then assert that an “intelligent designer” provides a better explanation. Although ID is discussed in the concluding section of the paper, there is no positive account of “intelligent design” presented, just as in all previous work on “intelligent design”. Just as a detective doesn’t have a case against someone without motive, means, and opportunity, ID doesn’t stand a scientific chance without some kind of model of what happened, how, and why. Only a reasonably detailed model could provide explanatory hypotheses that can be empirically tested. “An unknown intelligent designer did something, somewhere, somehow, for no apparent reason” is not a model.”_
> 
> What Meyer and all the hyper-religious charlatans fail to understand is that ID’iot creationism is not falsifiable and it creates many unresolved levels of contradiction. ID’iot creationism doesn’t resolve anything at all, i.e. it has no content. By ‘content’ I‘m speaking to a body of determinate principles. By ‘principles’ I‘m speaking to a proposition and an identifiable, logical series of events, circumstances and supportive data that are central to the theory.
> 
> There are only appeals to magic and supernaturalism central to ID’iot creationism. Two obvious questions to ask the supernaturalists are;
> a) what does ID‘iot creationism offer? And,
> b) what can ID‘iot creationism explain that evolution can’t?
> Answer;
> a) not much and,
> b) nothing
> 
> What the ID’iot creationers fail to understand is that biological evolution was and still is the only viable theory, consistent with the scientific method, that can explain how we get biological complexity from simplicity and biological diversity from uniformity.
> 
> The silly slogan “naturalistic thinking” comes right out of the Disco’tute. It’s typical for all of the ID’iot creationer charlatans to use such slogans. That is because the explanations offered by the fundie creation ministries are not explanations at all. They are appeals of last resorts to fear and superstition that hang on supernatural gods.
Click to expand...


I don't know what they use to falsify their theories, so you got me there.  But you sound like you are generalizing as you do not provide an example of something they said or an example from them that wasn't falsifiable.

I also don't know if they have an argument against aliens.  Do you know?  I'm sure they have on against abiogenesis as fine tuning, too.

I'm sure we'll talk more about ID in another thread.  The Bible theorists usually do not subscribe to ID because it doesn't mention God nor the Bible as the intelligent designer.  However, it seems that we are in the same camp against evolutionists and atheists and their science beliefs.  I don't think I can argue for irreducible complexity and specified complexity, but have used their anthropic principle in the past.  The irreducible complexity has been used in the past to explain the development of the eye.  It can't just happen in a stepwise process.  All the parts of the eye would have had to develop at the same time for it to work.  Maybe it was ID that first proposed this line of thinking to explain the formation of the eye.  Specified complexity is given by a roomful of chimps and typewriters and paper.  The typewriters are set up with paper and ribbon in them so all the monkeys have to do is press the keys.  Day after day, the researchers change the paper (or even the typewriter if damaged) and note the output.  Maybe after a year, the monkeys have a sentence or two that makes sense.  However, specified complexity states that they won't have written a book, even a children's book.  It takes more of an advanced brain to do that.

BTW you sure like to denigrate IDers.  What did they do to you?


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are no theories that aliens did not happen.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First, we define aliens as intelligent aliens.  We're not discussing just outer space abiogenesis.  We have Drake's Equation, Fermi's Paradox, The Great Filter, and other arguments against it.  The fine tuning facts prevent abiogenesis, so it becomes a big reason for no aliens.
> 
> Furthermore, the Bible does not state God created aliens nor Jesus died to save aliens.  The hard evidence is none has been found despite SETI, optical SETI, Alien Telescope Array, space explorations and fly bys with probes and powerful telescopes.  There are other methods of contact which have been explored, but still nothing.
> 
> The atheist scientists such a Neil deGrasse Tyson and Stephen Hawking still think they exist, but no evidence for them.  Hawking has died not knowing aliens exist like Carl Sagan.  deGrasse Tyson will die without knowing, too, and he says sometimes it keeps him up at night thinking about how science can help find them.  Other top scientists who believed in the possibility of aliens and have died without knowing are Albert Einstein, Nikola Tesla, and Richard Feynman.
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The fact that we are here proves abiogenesis happens
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It also proves God is the creator.  More evidence for God than abiogenesis or aliens because we found a book that explains step-by-step how it happened.  Atheists still have vast universe and top scientists who believe in it, but they have all died without ever knowing aliens or abiogenesis.  Creation scientists and I believe the vast universe demonstrates the beauty, complexity, and glory of God instead.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Please identify where Fermi's Paradox, Drake's Equation, The Great Filter, and your nonsensical “fine tuning facts” presents any evidence for or against alien life.
> 
> Please support your nonsense claim about some “fine tuning” you claim exist. Please supply peer reviewed evidence that a) supports your version of the gods, and then, b) supporting evidence that your gods have a supernatural hand in the workings of the universe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You been supplied with it many times, but just can't get it through the thickness.
> 
> Obviously, it's your side's claim and so need to produce the aliens and evidence of abiogenesis.  That would show the atheist scientists were right and victory is yours.
> 
> Until then, the victory goes to the fine tuning side.  I will give you this as ID has passed peer review just to tweak your nose some more -- https://www.breakpoint.org/intelligent-design-passes-peer-review/.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Encyclopedia of American Loons
> 
> 
> It’s … The Encyclopedia of American loons! Our new and exciting series presenting a representative sample of American loons from A-Z.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> americanloons.blogspot.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Charles “Chuck” Wendell Colson is a Christian leader, cultural commentator, and author of lots of book books, several of which have been recognized with ECPA Christian Book Awards. Colson was a former Special Counsel for President Richard Nixon from 1969 to 1973 and the first member of the Nixon administration to be incarcerated for Watergate-related charges (he was named as one of the Watergate Seven). He was never charged with or convicted of anything related to that, but did plead guilty to obstruction of justice in another case and served seven months of a one-to-three year sentence in Alabama's Maxwell Prison. He is also a Templeton foundation recipient and winner of a number of awards, among them honorary doctorates from you-know-what-kind-of institutions, and the Others Award from the Salvation Army (you might want to look up the list of previous winners here. He's also a member of the Family (more here).
> 
> He also maintains several media channels which discuss contemporary issues from an evangelical Christian worldview, his own views usually being conservative interpretation of evangelical Christianity. He zealously opposes same-sex marriage, argues that Darwinism is used to attack Christianity, and that the Enron accounting scandals were a consequence of secularism. He is, in short, a hard-core creationist repeating Discovery Institute lies - claiming Darwinism helped cause forced sterilizations by eugenicists – and a steadfast anti-abortionist, claiming that abortion is the real cause of illegal immigration by creating a labor shortage due to "40 million sacrificed since 1973". He is also a steadfast proponent of the Bible Literacy Project's curriculum “The Bible and Its Influence” for public high school literature courses – a poorly disguised wedge trick.
> 
> There is much to choose from in Colson’s career. There is, for instance, his argument that the real causes of terrorism are pornography and abortion, and if only the US restricted the freedom of its citizens some more, terrorism would go away (I mean, the Taliban hates us for our freedom, don’t they? Take it away, and they wouldn’t hate us anymore).
> 
> Diagnosis: Deranged wingnut and blind zealot with no aptitude for truth or reason. Still pretty powerful and influential.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's strange where your rantings lead me sometimes.  I looked up what happened to Colson after your rant.
> 
> It's mostly a good biography for the man except for the last two paragraphs and "wedge trick."  Is it a wedge trick when he became Christian before going to trial and eventual prison?
> 
> 'When the Watergate scandal broke, Chuck found himself at the center of the storm as one of the "Watergate Seven." Under the pressure, Chuck retired into private life, but the threat of prosecution on Watergate-related charges still haunted him and his family.
> 
> At this critical moment, a close friend gave Chuck a copy of _Mere Christianity_, a book by popular British author C.S. Lewis that explores and defends the core beliefs of the Christian faith. The book sparked a series of conversations and encounters that led, finally, to Chuck's conversion.
> 
> "I spent an hour calling out to God," Chuck remembered in 2008, describing the night he spent sitting in his car, sobbing and praying. "I did not even know the right words. I simply knew that I wanted Him."'
> 
> After getting out, he founded the Prison Fellowship -- Watergate: The Glorious Defeat of Chuck Colson - Prison Fellowship.
> 
> Your argument is a biased blog site.  So much for your scientific reading cred.  Did you think it was an encyclopedia ?
> 
> We got American Liberal Loons and President and VP now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I understand you’re embarrassed that the leader of the cult you linked to is a convicted criminal. Such immoral behavior seems to be a common theme of so many fundie ministries.
> 
> Your hurt feelings about a “biased” site are your own to deal with. What part about the conviction and jailing of Colson is biased?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're right, Colson is a convicted criminal but he isn't the leader of _my_ cult.  Instead, I find that he changed in many ways after reading one book before being tried and convicted to be uplifting.  Maybe I should read more ID material.
> 
> Instead, it should be you who is embarrassed because you use a biased blog site as an encyclopedia.  That isn't a credible science document to show a proper argument.
> 
> Here's what I've found in my early forays into ID because of your false accusations.  Now, we know that intelligent design has been peer reviewed and accepted as being scientific.
> 
> First, its definition from the Discovery Institute:
> "Intelligent Design: A scientific theory that holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause rather than undirected process such as natural selection._"_
> 
> "Recently, however, there have been several intelligent design peer-reviewed articles and studies published. A good number of these have been published in lesser-known or less prestigious circles, and quite a few have been published by overtly pro-design groups. Still, intelligent design peer-reviewed work is beginning to appear in more respected and established publications. A recent example, published in the _"Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington,"_ caused a controversy that demonstrated considerable hypocrisy.
> 
> The article is titled _"The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories."_ The conclusion of the article, in brief, is that design explains things that natural selection cannot. _Proceedings_ is a peer-reviewed publication. According to the then-editor, the three reviewers were all faculty members of respected universities and research institutions. The editor also stated that, while the reviewers did not agree with the conclusions, they found nothing scientifically invalid in the reasoning.
> 
> This example of an intelligent design peer-reviewed article was not embraced by the naturalistic crowd, but condemned. _Proceedings_ was attacked for publishing an article of "substandard science." Pro-evolutionists once claimed that a lack of intelligent design peer-reviewed work was due to a lack of credibility. Once such articles are published, however, they seem to question the entire peer-review process. Essentially, those who are entrenched into naturalistic thinking will only support peer review if it agrees with them. Many in the scientific community have made a plea for rational thinking, saying that no theory should be beyond questioning and any logical arguments must be considered. These pleas have mostly fallen on deaf ears."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Intelligent Design Peer-Reviewed
> 
> 
> Intelligent Design Peer-Reviewed - Real science? Objective studies supporting design theory are now more common, appearing more frequently in respected journals and publications.
> 
> 
> 
> www.allaboutscience.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now, the tables have turned on you and it is you who is practicing lunacy as part of your science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The site I linked to for the Colson criminal incarceration details causes you embarrassment. I can understand that. I had no intention of suggesting a convicted criminal heading a religious cult would present a rational science argument.
> 
> The paper you identified by Meyer is a rather laughable joke. It was critiqued here: Ryan Nichols, Scientific content, testability, and the vacuity of Intelligent Design theory The American Catholic philosophical quarterly, 2003 ,vol. 77 ,no 4 ,pp. 591 - 611
> 
> “_Meyer’s paper predictably follows the same pattern that has characterized “intelligent design” since its inception: deny the sufficiency of evolutionary processes to account for life’s history and diversity, then assert that an “intelligent designer” provides a better explanation. Although ID is discussed in the concluding section of the paper, there is no positive account of “intelligent design” presented, just as in all previous work on “intelligent design”. Just as a detective doesn’t have a case against someone without motive, means, and opportunity, ID doesn’t stand a scientific chance without some kind of model of what happened, how, and why. Only a reasonably detailed model could provide explanatory hypotheses that can be empirically tested. “An unknown intelligent designer did something, somewhere, somehow, for no apparent reason” is not a model.”_
> 
> What Meyer and all the hyper-religious charlatans fail to understand is that ID’iot creationism is not falsifiable and it creates many unresolved levels of contradiction. ID’iot creationism doesn’t resolve anything at all, i.e. it has no content. By ‘content’ I‘m speaking to a body of determinate principles. By ‘principles’ I‘m speaking to a proposition and an identifiable, logical series of events, circumstances and supportive data that are central to the theory.
> 
> There are only appeals to magic and supernaturalism central to ID’iot creationism. Two obvious questions to ask the supernaturalists are;
> a) what does ID‘iot creationism offer? And,
> b) what can ID‘iot creationism explain that evolution can’t?
> Answer;
> a) not much and,
> b) nothing
> 
> What the ID’iot creationers fail to understand is that biological evolution was and still is the only viable theory, consistent with the scientific method, that can explain how we get biological complexity from simplicity and biological diversity from uniformity.
> 
> The silly slogan “naturalistic thinking” comes right out of the Disco’tute. It’s typical for all of the ID’iot creationer charlatans to use such slogans. That is because the explanations offered by the fundie creation ministries are not explanations at all. They are appeals of last resorts to fear and superstition that hang on supernatural gods.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know what they use to falsify their theories, so you got me there.  But you sound like you are generalizing as you do not provide an example of something they said or an example from them that wasn't falsifiable.
> 
> I also don't know if they have an argument against aliens.  Do you know?  I'm sure they have on against abiogenesis as fine tuning, too.
> 
> I'm sure we'll talk more about ID in another thread.  The Bible theorists usually do not subscribe to ID because it doesn't mention God nor the Bible as the intelligent designer.  However, it seems that we are in the same camp against evolutionists and atheists and their science beliefs.  I don't think I can argue for irreducible complexity and specified complexity, but have used their anthropic principle in the past.  The irreducible complexity has been used in the past to explain the development of the eye.  It can't just happen in a stepwise process.  All the parts of the eye would have had to develop at the same time for it to work.  Maybe it was ID that first proposed this line of thinking to explain the formation of the eye.  Specified complexity is given by a roomful of chimps and typewriters and paper.  The typewriters are set up with paper and ribbon in them so all the monkeys have to do is press the keys.  Day after day, the researchers change the paper (or even the typewriter if damaged) and note the output.  Maybe after a year, the monkeys have a sentence or two that makes sense.  However, specified complexity states that they won't have written a book, even a children's book.  It takes more of an advanced brain to do that.
> 
> BTW you sure like to denigrate IDers.  What did they do to you?
Click to expand...

It‘s not generalizing to require ID’iot creationers to support their claims to one version of the gods. I agree with the question, “how does anyone falsify supernatural gods?”

What exactly is a “Bible theorist”? I think such invented terms are rather pointless without defining some specifics.

“Specified Complexity” is a slogan right out of Dembski’ism. The definition of the concept of “specification” is so utterly subjective that specifications, like the appeal of art or music, are in the eye of the beholder. To establish that something is a “specification” all you do (and all you can do!) is claim that you have knowledge that allows you to explicitly and uneqivocally identify a superset of an event in question without recourse to the event, and hope that the rest of the world believes you.

“Irreducible complexity” is a Behe’ism right out of the ID’iot creationer ministries. Appeals to supernatural design are defined in terms of one or more supernatural gods purposely “designing” something. However, such a concept appears nowhere in the process of distinguishing design in the sense of "intelligent design." Dembski defined design in terms of what it is not (known regularity and chance), making intelligent design an argument from incredulity; he never said what design is.




			CB200:  Irreducible complexity
		

*Claim CB200:*
Some biochemical systems are irreducibly complex, meaning that the removal of any one part of the system destroys the system's function. Irreducible complexity rules out the possibility of a system having evolved, so it must be designed.

*Source:*
Behe, Michael J. 1996. _Darwin's Black Box_, New York: The Free Press.
*Response:*

Irreducible complexity can evolve. It is defined as a system that loses its function if any one part is removed, so it only indicates that the system did not evolve by the addition of single parts with no change in function. That still leaves several evolutionary mechanisms:

deletion of parts
addition of multiple parts; for example, duplication of much or all of the system (Pennisi 2001)
change of function
addition of a second function to a part (Aharoni et al. 2004)
gradual modification of parts

All of these mechanisms have been observed in genetic mutations. In particular, deletions and gene duplications are fairly common (Dujon et al. 2004; Hooper and Berg 2003; Lynch and Conery 2000), and together they make irreducible complexity not only possible but expected. In fact, it was predicted by Nobel-prize-winning geneticist Hermann Muller almost a century ago (Muller 1918, 463-464). Muller referred to it as interlocking complexity (Muller 1939).

Evolutionary origins of some irreducibly complex systems have been described in some detail. For example, the evolution of the Krebs citric acid cycle has been well studied (Meléndez-Hevia et al. 1996), and the evolution of an "irreducible" system of a hormone-receptor system has been elucidated (Bridgham et al. 2006). Irreducibility is no obstacle to their formation.


Even if irreducible complexity did prohibit Darwinian evolution, the conclusion of design does not follow. Other processes might have produced it. Irreducible complexity is an example of a failed argument from incredulity.


Irreducible complexity is poorly defined. It is defined in terms of parts, but it is far from obvious what a "part" is. Logically, the parts should be individual atoms, because they are the level of organization that does not get subdivided further in biochemistry, and they are the smallest level that biochemists consider in their analysis. Behe, however, considered sets of molecules to be individual parts, and he gave no indication of how he made his determinations.


Systems that have been considered irreducibly complex might not be. For example:
The mousetrap that Behe used as an example of irreducible complexity can be simplified by bending the holding arm slightly and removing the latch.
The bacterial flagellum is not irreducibly complex because it can lose many parts and still function, either as a simpler flagellum or a secretion system. Many proteins of the eukaryotic flagellum (also called a cilium or undulipodium) are known to be dispensable, because functional swimming flagella that lack these proteins are known to exist.
In spite of the complexity of Behe's protein transport example, there are other proteins for which no transport is necessary (see Ussery 1999 for references).
The immune system example that Behe includes is not irreducibly complex because the antibodies that mark invading cells for destruction might themselves hinder the function of those cells, allowing the system to function (albeit not as well) without the destroyer molecules of the complement system.


----------



## Grumblenuts

Hollie said:


> Even if irreducible complexity did prohibit Darwinian evolution, the conclusion of design does not follow. Other processes might have produced it. Irreducible complexity is an example of a failed argument from incredulity.
> 
> 
> Irreducible complexity is poorly defined. It is defined in terms of parts, but it is far from obvious what a "part" is. Logically, the parts should be individual atoms, because they are the level of organization that does not get subdivided further in biochemistry, and they are the smallest level that biochemists consider in their analysis. Behe, however, considered sets of molecules to be individual parts, and he gave no indication of how he made his determinations.


Nice. And, of course, neither does James here. Seems to me we've been here, going over these exact same, cheaply concocted objections many times now. Your patience is amazing to behold over time. You model true class. I don't know how you manage to keep it up. I can no longer convince myself that these idiots seriously believe more than the teensiest sliver of their own crap. All seems to boil down to politics for them. Be bastardized beyond recognition. Perhaps some economic fears or control issues addle one personally. No excuse. Sophistication gone. Facts and logic no longer matter. Think tank mentality prevails. Simply deny stuff. Manipulate. Succinctly repeat. Catapult the propaganda.  Rinse and repeat. Education and critical thought be damned.


----------



## james bond

Grumblenuts said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Even if irreducible complexity did prohibit Darwinian evolution, the conclusion of design does not follow. Other processes might have produced it. Irreducible complexity is an example of a failed argument from incredulity.
> 
> 
> Irreducible complexity is poorly defined. It is defined in terms of parts, but it is far from obvious what a "part" is. Logically, the parts should be individual atoms, because they are the level of organization that does not get subdivided further in biochemistry, and they are the smallest level that biochemists consider in their analysis. Behe, however, considered sets of molecules to be individual parts, and he gave no indication of how he made his determinations.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nice. And, of course, neither does James here. Seems to me we've been here, going over these exact same, cheaply concocted objections many times now. Your patience is amazing to behold over time. You model true class. I don't know how you manage to keep it up. I can no longer convince myself that these idiots seriously believe more than the teensiest sliver of their own crap. All seems to boil down to politics for them. Be bastardized beyond recognition. Perhaps some economic fears or control issues addle one personally. No excuse. Sophistication gone. Facts and logic no longer matter. Think tank mentality prevails. Simply deny stuff. Manipulate. Succinctly repeat. Catapult the propaganda.  Rinse and repeat. Education and critical thought be damned.
Click to expand...


All I did was explain ID as I understood it.  I didn't mean for it to be my argument against whatever Hollie or you believe for evolution.  I even have stated it more than once.  Is it the wax in your ears or blinders over your eyes?

I'm not sure what you mean by "cheaply concocted objections," but your arguments to object against my science views are just plain feces.  It shows what your brain is concocted of.

Moreover, you bring up politics and that has to do with liberal thinking and mindset.  I may be conservative at heart in politics, but am a liberal thinker with my science.  I can accept abiogenesis if there was a way to falsify it, but there isn't.  You will have to admit a creator exists or intelligent design, but your own scientific atheism eliminates God's existence and so no way to falsify your theories.  That's why ToE and abiogenesis are not a valid theories.  Isn't that right?  On the creation science's theories side, we admit falsification would be to demonstrate abiogenesis with no millions or billions of years and ToE such as producing the transitional fossils.  We may not agree with your science, but don't act as if scientific atheism doesn't exist.

All I have is evidence that abiogenesis didn't happen on Earth nor our solar system.  Experimenters like Urey-Miller have tried to demonstrate, but failed.  You got observations and experiments, but no God to falsify it.  First, you have to admit to the possibility of a supernatural creator.


----------



## justinacolmena

Blackrook said:


> Here's what I think.
> 
> One planet in the universe has intelligent life: Earth.
> 
> One form of intelligent life exists in the universe: humans.


You cannot be wrong here.


Blackrook said:


> One universe exists, there are no others: our universe.
> 
> Prove me wrong.


You still cannot be wrong. Whatever is the "universe" by definition, there is one and only one of it, which encompasses all that exists.


----------



## JimBowie1958

Blackrook said:


> But belief in these theories are more wishful thinking than reality.
> 
> The concept that there are an infinite number of parallel universes is poppycock. Even if true, there will never be a way to prove it.
> 
> If extra-terrestrial civilizations existed, we'd know it by now. We've been listening for their radio signals for decades and in all that time we've heard squat.
> 
> The reality is that atheist scientists have pushed belief in these notions because they hate Christianity and want to undermine people's faith in religion.


Well, that will just be one more thing that they are dead wrong about.

BTW, I think that there are multiple universes and space aliens that visit us all the time.

But I sure as hell am not a damned atheist.


----------



## JimBowie1958

GLASNOST said:


> Why are people so stupid? Atheism has nothing to do with science. Read my lips .... Science does not disprove the existence of God but *Science most definitely DISPROVES THE BIBLE & the KORAN. *Is that really so difficult to understand?


Science cannot disprove the Bible or Koran, dude, as Science cannot 'disprove' literary works of any kind that contain allegory, metaphor and prophetic text..


----------



## JimBowie1958

Blackrook said:


> Here's what I think.
> 
> One planet in the universe has intelligent life: Earth.
> 
> One form of intelligent life exists in the universe: humans.
> 
> One universe exists, there are no others: our universe.
> 
> Prove me wrong.


I think you are probably wrong, and I suspect that our videos of extraterrestrial aircraft pretty much settles the whole thing.

There is other sentient life, and I suspect the universe is full of life.


----------



## GLASNOST

JimBowie1958 said:


> GLASNOST said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why are people so stupid? Atheism has nothing to do with science. Read my lips .... Science does not disprove the existence of God but *Science most definitely DISPROVES THE BIBLE & the KORAN. *Is that really so difficult to understand?
> 
> 
> 
> Science cannot disprove the Bible or Koran, dude, as Science cannot 'disprove' literary works of any kind that contain allegory, metaphor and prophetic text..
Click to expand...

So, you are saying that nothing found in the bible has been disproved. Gee whilikers.


----------



## JimBowie1958

GLASNOST said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GLASNOST said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why are people so stupid? Atheism has nothing to do with science. Read my lips .... Science does not disprove the existence of God but *Science most definitely DISPROVES THE BIBLE & the KORAN. *Is that really so difficult to understand?
> 
> 
> 
> Science cannot disprove the Bible or Koran, dude, as Science cannot 'disprove' literary works of any kind that contain allegory, metaphor and prophetic text..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, you are saying that nothing found in the bible has been disproved. Gee whilikers.
Click to expand...

Not by science.

None of us were present  when these things happened and they involved things that go beyond the natural law.

Why dont we take a specific case?
Disprove the Song of Solomon, OK? Then I'll rebut your arguments.


----------



## GLASNOST

JimBowie1958 said:


> ...... None of us were present  when these things happened and *they involved things that go beyond the natural law*....


----------



## Grumblenuts

james bond said:


> All I have is evidence that abiogenesis didn't happen on Earth nor our solar system. Experimenters like Urey-Miller have tried to demonstrate, but failed. You got observations and experiments, but no God to falsify it. First, you have to admit to the possibility of a supernatural creator.


Talk is truly cheap. Cheaper by the dozen.  Even cheaper by the baker's dozen..

Got real, scientific evidence? Good, shut up, share it, allow others to evaluate its veracity and true significance vs your claims. But you don't really have any "evidence," do you now? You read some idiot claiming some crap somewhere is all. Admit it. 

"Experimenters like Urey-Miller have tried to demonstrate, but failed." Yes, and you're not simply some asshole barking nonsense on the interwebs. "Demonstrate" what now?


> They found that several organic amino acids had formed spontaneously from inorganic raw materials. These molecules collected together in the pool of water to form coacervates.





> In the warm primordial ocean, aggregates of amino acids, proteins, and other hydrocarbons came together into a form called **coacervates**. Amino acids will spontaneously form coacervates in the same way that beads of vinegar in oil come together. The Miller-Urey experiment showed that amino acids form under conditions similar to the Earth's primordial environment.
> These beads, or coacervates are perhaps the simplest of systems that, without a membrane, can be said to be bound together; that is they have a distinct inside and outside. The primordial ocean provided an ideal medium for their formation, for the primordial ocean was large, and water can hold the coacervates suspended for a long period of time without being disturbed.


----------



## JimBowie1958

james bond said:


> First, its definition from the Discovery Institute:
> "Intelligent Design: A scientific theory that holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause rather than undirected process such as natural selection._"_


While I agree that there are indicators that the universe has design, that is NOT a scientific theory.  It is a philosophical theory that kind of transitions between natural philosophy and theology.

That is the axiomatic flaw to presenting ID as science theory; it has a much broader scope than mere science allows for.


----------



## JimBowie1958

GLASNOST said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...... None of us were present  when these things happened and *they involved things that go beyond the natural law*....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 413544
Click to expand...

Making up bullshit as a half ass straw man proves nothing more than that you have nothing.

Prove the Ten Plagues did not happen, when there are natural events that *could* have caused it, smart ass.


----------



## JimBowie1958

GLASNOST said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Science cannot disprove the Bible or Koran, dude, as Science cannot 'disprove' literary works of any kind that contain allegory, metaphor and prophetic text..
> 
> 
> 
> So, you are saying that nothing found in the bible has been disproved. Gee whilikers.
Click to expand...

Look, I gave you an opportunity to prove your point and all you are doing in response is actin like a jack ass.

Disprove the Song of Solomon or shut the fuck up.


----------



## ReinyDays

james bond said:


> You're deliberately trying to derail the topic of abiogenesis.  We aren't discussing nutrition.  For abiogenesis, one needs to have proteins.  No one is arguing there aren't amino acid _compounds_ out there, but there are no processes to randomly or have probability convert amino acids into proteins like our body does just from amino acids.  Their chirality prevents it.
> 
> BTW, you're wrong.  Proteins are the building blocks to life.  Amino acids just provide the energy from food to fuel the body to convert it to proteins.  Like duh yourself!



HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW ... 

Proteins are polymers of amino acids ... and chirality has no effect on the amino group attaching to the organic acid group ... c'mon man, this is second year chemistry ... we have dictionaries, try to learn how to use them ...


----------



## ReinyDays

JimBowie1958 said:


> Disprove the Song of Solomon or shut the fuck up.



Having actually read the Song of Solomon myself ... this comment made me laugh ... well spoken ... and I will shut the fuck up because there is no disproving this ... fifteen love ...


----------



## GLASNOST

JimBowie1958 said:


> Making up bullshit as a half ass straw man proves nothing more than that you have nothing.Prove the Ten Plagues did not happen, when there are natural events that *could* have caused it, smart ass. ...... Look, I gave you an opportunity to prove your point and all you are doing in response is actin like a jack ass. Disprove the Song of Solomon or shut the fuck up.


There are two facts here and both are from the Twilight Zone:
*Fact one).* You said .....


JimBowie1958 said:


> None of us were present  when these things happened and they involved things that go beyond the natural law.


*Fact two).* You want me to take fact one seriously.


----------



## JimBowie1958

GLASNOST said:


> There are two facts here and both are from the Twilight Zone:
> *Fact one).* You said .....
> 
> 
> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> None of us were present  when these things happened and they involved things that go beyond the natural law.
> 
> 
> 
> *Fact two).* You want me to take fact one seriously.
Click to expand...

That I stated the challenge is not from 'the Twilight Zone, and yes, I expect you to either be rational or shut the fuck up.

Sounds like you just need to shut the fuck up already.


----------



## GLASNOST

JimBowie1958 said:


> That I stated the challenge is not from 'the Twilight Zone, and yes, I expect you to either be rational or shut the fuck up.
> 
> Sounds like you just need to shut the fuck up already.



What you need to do is support your statement and respond to my comment .....


GLASNOST said:


> So, you are saying that nothing found in the bible has been disproved.


... so far all I see is you trying to find something in the bible that might be true. I guess when you see a Hollywood film that is "based on a true story" you take it for factual through and through. If you shut the fuck up or shut the hell up or keep talking makes no difference to me but please stop trying to pass off fairy tales (such as the bible) as a factbook. The book is filled with myths.


----------



## Rye Catcher

Blackrook said:


> If you can't prove it then it's really a form of lying to teach in the schools and convince innocent little children it's true.



It seems you've offered an opinion on the existence of God; no proof and yet billions of children are educated by priests, rabbis, Imams and other clergy.


----------



## miketx

Blackrook said:


> But belief in these theories are more wishful thinking than reality.
> 
> The concept that there are an infinite number of parallel universes is poppycock. Even if true, there will never be a way to prove it.
> 
> If extra-terrestrial civilizations existed, we'd know it by now. We've been listening for their radio signals for decades and in all that time we've heard squat.
> 
> The reality is that atheist scientists have pushed belief in these notions because they hate Christianity and want to undermine people's faith in religion.


Easy one. You assume they use radio, but what if they don't? What if they use Quantum pairs, or something we never even dreamed of? In that case we wouldn't hear a peep.


----------



## JimBowie1958

GLASNOST said:


> What you need to do is support your statement and respond to my comment .....



I did. I stated that science cannot disprove literary works, which you still do not grasp the significance of yet.

I am trying to help you understand my point by challenging you to disprove the Song of Solomon, and you keep ignoring that challenge because you are a stupid ass smooth brained moron.



GLASNOST said:


> ... so far all I see is you trying to find something in the bible that might be true. I guess when you see a Hollywood film that is "based on a true story" you take it for factual through and through. If you shut the fuck up or shut the hell up or keep talking makes no difference to me but please stop trying to pass off fairy tales (such as the bible) as a factbook. The book is filled with myths.


No, I dont take Hollywood movies as factual, but I do not think that 'science' can disprove them necessarily either.

But that is a straw man argument anyway. We are talking about the Bible and the Koran, not sleazy Hollywood perversions.


----------



## miketx

Also, I wonder how our tech advanced 200 years in 50 years? Hmmmm....


----------



## GLASNOST

JimBowie1958 said:


> GLASNOST said:
> 
> 
> 
> What you need to do is support your statement and respond to my comment .....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I did. I stated that science cannot disprove literary works, which you still do not grasp the significance of yet.
> 
> I am trying to help you understand my point by challenging you to disprove the Song of Solomon, and you keep ignoring that challenge because you are a stupid ass smooth brained moron.
> 
> 
> 
> GLASNOST said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... so far all I see is you trying to find something in the bible that might be true. I guess when you see a Hollywood film that is "based on a true story" you take it for factual through and through. If you shut the fuck up or shut the hell up or keep talking makes no difference to me but please stop trying to pass off fairy tales (such as the bible) as a factbook. The book is filled with myths.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, I dont take Hollywood movies as factual, but I do not think that 'science' can disprove them necessarily either.
> 
> But that is a straw man argument anyway. We are talking about the Bible and the Koran, not sleazy Hollywood perversions.
Click to expand...

Who cares about some trivial matter upon which you hang your hat? Science has disproved the biblical accounts of creation. That's fundamental stuff. The bible is full of fairy tales, genesis is only one of them.


----------



## danielpalos

Even right wingers can't seem to obey Ten simple Commandments from God and we need the Expense of Government as a result.  Right wingers merely complaining about taxes due to their lack obedience to the Commands of God could be a proof they are just right wing Hoaxsters and hypocrites.


----------



## JimBowie1958

GLASNOST said:


> Who cares about some trivial matter upon which you hang your hat? Science has disproved the biblical accounts of creation. That's fundamental stuff. The bible is full of fairy tales, genesis is only one of them.


Again, you demonstrate what an ignorant fuckface you are.

The book of Genesis Creation story is allegory, not literal and not modern scientific theory. It cannot be 'disproven', jack ass.

And it is not a trivial matter to point out the range of topics science is applicable to and what is not.

Again, you are just a driveling idiot.

Welcome to my ignore list, twat.


----------



## GLASNOST

JimBowie1958 said:


> GLASNOST said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...... Science has disproved the biblical accounts of creation. That's fundamental stuff. The bible is full of fairy tales, genesis is only one of them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, you demonstrate what an ignorant fuckface you are. The book of Genesis Creation story is allegory, not literal and not modern scientific theory. It cannot be 'disproven', jack ass. And it is not a trivial matter to point out the range of topics science is applicable to and what is not. Again, you are just a driveling idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You may say so but my point has been made and I have proven two things:
> 
> *1). *That science has disproved the biblical accounts of creation, rendering the bible a work of fantasy, fiction, and superstition.
> *2).* That you are now aware of it as your final statement attests ....
> 
> 
> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Welcome to my ignore list, twat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ... which is the written form of sticking your fingers in your ears and saying, _"La-La-La-La!"
> 
> 
> 
> _
Click to expand...


----------



## Grumblenuts

GLASNOST said:


> Why are people so stupid? Atheism has nothing to do with science. Read my lips .... Science does not disprove the existence of God but *Science most definitely DISPROVES THE BIBLE & the KORAN. *Is that really so difficult to understand?


Jim is correct in that science just studies things. It never aims to prove and disprove anything. It temporarily accepts and rejects ideas based upon currently available evidence.
No scientific evidence? - notion rejected until some is presented to support it..


> *MISCONCEPTION: Science proves ideas.*
> *CORRECTION: *Journalists often write about "scientific proof" and some scientists talk about it, but in fact, the concept of proof — real, absolute proof — is not particularly scientific. Science is based on the principle that _any_ idea, no matter how widely accepted today, could be overturned tomorrow if the evidence warranted it. Science accepts or rejects ideas based on the evidence; it does not prove or disprove them. To learn more about this, visit our page describing how science aims to build knowledge.


----------



## james bond

ReinyDays said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're deliberately trying to derail the topic of abiogenesis.  We aren't discussing nutrition.  For abiogenesis, one needs to have proteins.  No one is arguing there aren't amino acid _compounds_ out there, but there are no processes to randomly or have probability convert amino acids into proteins like our body does just from amino acids.  Their chirality prevents it.
> 
> BTW, you're wrong.  Proteins are the building blocks to life.  Amino acids just provide the energy from food to fuel the body to convert it to proteins.  Like duh yourself!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW ...
> 
> Proteins are polymers of amino acids ... and chirality has no effect on the amino group attaching to the organic acid group ... c'mon man, this is second year chemistry ... we have dictionaries, try to learn how to use them ...
Click to expand...


Haha.  Get serious.  We are talking about the beginning and the BS of abiogenesis.  I just showed it is impossible to happen and you are spouting mumbo jumbo.


----------



## james bond

JimBowie1958 said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> First, its definition from the Discovery Institute:
> "Intelligent Design: A scientific theory that holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause rather than undirected process such as natural selection._"_
> 
> 
> 
> While I agree that there are indicators that the universe has design, that is NOT a scientific theory.  It is a philosophical theory that kind of transitions between natural philosophy and theology.
> 
> That is the axiomatic flaw to presenting ID as science theory; it has a much broader scope than mere science allows for.
Click to expand...


Again, I'm not arguing ID.  I was just describing for the people like Hollie who ascribe it to those who believe in creation science like me.


----------



## ReinyDays

james bond said:


> Haha.  Get serious.  We are talking about the beginning and the BS of abiogenesis.  I just showed it is impossible to happen and you are spouting mumbo jumbo.



Here's a link to the scientific paper you referenced ... "A Production of Amino Acids Under Possible Primitive Earth Conditions" --- Miller, Stanley --- _Science_, May 15th, 1953 ...

Show me where any of this disproves the results they got ... amino acids from strictly non-biological sources ... read ... enjoy ... you haven't shown this is be impossible ... at least not with research that _*clearly*_ shows it is possible ...

Basic organic chemistry is "mumbo jumbo" to you? ... that's sad ... that article above is going to be way over your head ... of course anything you haven't bothered to learn is wrong ... 

You do agree that a Water Element can randomly crash into an Earth Element and combine to form a new substance ... and then again a random crash into a Fire Element ... and this forms life ... see how every living thing is a combination of Water, Earth and Fire Elements ... Uranus created these Elements just before he got his balls cut off ... then Cronus twisted and perverted them into His image ... Zeus took over and straighten things out, and that why we still sacrifice our children at His temples ... 

Air turned out to be a total slut ... spawned the Gorgons ... yeah, snakes, always the snakes ...


----------



## JimBowie1958

james bond said:


> Again, I'm not arguing ID.  I was just describing for the people like Hollie who ascribe it to those who believe in creation science like me.


"Creation Science" to my mind is an oxymorn.

Science cannot prove or disprove theology like the concept of Creation.

It can prove the Big Bang, which one could think of as the story of Creation expressed in the form of scientific theory of Relativity terms, but that is kind of different.


----------



## james bond

ReinyDays said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Haha.  Get serious.  We are talking about the beginning and the BS of abiogenesis.  I just showed it is impossible to happen and you are spouting mumbo jumbo.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here's a link to the scientific paper you referenced ... "A Production of Amino Acids Under Possible Primitive Earth Conditions" --- Miller, Stanley --- _Science_, May 15th, 1953 ...
> 
> Show me where any of this disproves the results they got ... amino acids from strictly non-biological sources ... read ... enjoy ... you haven't shown this is be impossible ... at least not with research that _*clearly*_ shows it is possible ...
> 
> Basic organic chemistry is "mumbo jumbo" to you? ... that's sad ... that article above is going to be way over your head ... of course anything you haven't bothered to learn is wrong ...
> 
> You do agree that a Water Element can randomly crash into an Earth Element and combine to form a new substance ... and then again a random crash into a Fire Element ... and this forms life ... see how every living thing is a combination of Water, Earth and Fire Elements ... Uranus created these Elements just before he got his balls cut off ... then Cronus twisted and perverted them into His image ... Zeus took over and straighten things out, and that why we still sacrifice our children at His temples ...
> 
> Air turned out to be a total slut ... spawned the Gorgons ... yeah, snakes, always the snakes ...
Click to expand...


I already mentioned Stanley Miller was a fail and you're stuck in 1953.  Boring.

No basic organic chemistry is a good start.  When you explain it, it's mumbo jumbo because you use it to make up stuff (called lies).

Besides, if basic organic chemistry is all it took to take amino acids and form proteins, then someone would've been able to do it by now.  But, the creation scientists have won because no one could as they explained due to chirality.


----------



## james bond

JimBowie1958 said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, I'm not arguing ID.  I was just describing for the people like Hollie who ascribe it to those who believe in creation science like me.
> 
> 
> 
> "Creation Science" to my mind is an oxymorn.
> 
> Science cannot prove or disprove theology like the concept of Creation.
> 
> It can prove the Big Bang, which one could think of as the story of Creation expressed in the form of scientific theory of Relativity terms, but that is kind of different.
Click to expand...


It's not theology as I said it's mostly from the Book of Genesis.  Science backs up what it states.  Creation scientists like Father Georges Lemaitre came up with the Big Bang Theory to explain how God created the universe.  But he didn't come up with singularity nor cosmic inflation which violate the laws of physics.


----------



## ReinyDays

james bond said:


> No basic organic chemistry is a good start.  When you explain it, it's mumbo jumbo because you use it to make up stuff (called lies).



So you don't believe amino groups readily bond with organic acid groups ... how strange ... what holds your proteins together then? ... "It's the liar who calls out 'liar' first" ...



james bond said:


> Besides, if basic organic chemistry is all it took to take amino acids and form proteins, then someone would've been able to do it by now.  But, the creation scientists have won because no one could as they explained due to chirality.



Making proteins is easy ... kitchen counter chemistry ... making amino acids is trickier ... but alanine is simple enough ...
There are several amino acids that are not chiral ... look that word up in the dictionary because you're using it wrong ...


----------



## GLASNOST

james bond said:


> .......  I just showed it is impossible to happen and you are spouting mumbo jumbo.


Please do not feign surprise.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> First, its definition from the Discovery Institute:
> "Intelligent Design: A scientific theory that holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause rather than undirected process such as natural selection._"_
> 
> 
> 
> While I agree that there are indicators that the universe has design, that is NOT a scientific theory.  It is a philosophical theory that kind of transitions between natural philosophy and theology.
> 
> That is the axiomatic flaw to presenting ID as science theory; it has a much broader scope than mere science allows for.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, I'm not arguing ID.  I was just describing for the people like Hollie who ascribe it to those who believe in creation science like me.
Click to expand...

Yes, you acknowledge ‘belief’ in something you call creation science. Belief is a requirement as ID’iot creation science is nothing more than Christian fundamentalism under a burqa of deceit and falsehoods.

As the bankruptcy of “creation science" is recognized, a new slogan, _intelligent design_, has been adopted by those who persist in their attempts to inject creationism (Christian fundamentalism) into the legitimate science curriculum.

The relevant, legitimate sciences have repeatedly and successfully refuted the usual arguments by ID’iot creationers that supernatural gods are responsible for the natural world. The arguments from science and _reason_ are grounded on the science of biological life. Science has convincingly demonstrated, to any rational person, that complexity sufficient for life could readily have emerged naturally in the primeval chemical stew. The processes causing the first emergence of life on the planet are not fully understood but nothing about biological life requires your gods.

The planet is not flat. Life evolves. These are material facts.


----------



## GLASNOST

Hollie said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> First, its definition from the Discovery Institute:
> "Intelligent Design: A scientific theory that holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause rather than undirected process such as natural selection._"_
> 
> 
> 
> While I agree that there are indicators that the universe has design, that is NOT a scientific theory.  It is a philosophical theory that kind of transitions between natural philosophy and theology.
> 
> That is the axiomatic flaw to presenting ID as science theory; it has a much broader scope than mere science allows for.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, I'm not arguing ID.  I was just describing for the people like Hollie who ascribe it to those who believe in creation science like me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, you acknowledge ‘belief’ in something you call creation science. Belief is a requirement as ID’iot creation science is nothing more than Christian fundamentalism under a burqa of deceit and falsehoods.
> 
> As the bankruptcy of “creation science" is recognized, a new slogan, _intelligent design_, has been adopted by those who persist in their attempts to inject creationism (Christian fundamentalism) into the legitimate science curriculum.
> 
> The relevant, legitimate sciences have repeatedly and successfully refuted the usual arguments by ID’iot creationers that supernatural gods are responsible for the natural world. The arguments from science and _reason_ are grounded on the science of biological life. Science has convincingly demonstrated, to any rational person, that complexity sufficient for life could readily have emerged naturally in the primeval chemical stew. The processes causing the first emergence of life on the planet are not fully understood but nothing about biological life requires your gods.
> 
> The planet is not flat. Life evolves. These are material facts.
Click to expand...

Oh! Truth ..... brutal and naked!  “Creation science"  is half-assed damage control.


----------



## james bond

ReinyDays said:


> "It's the liar who calls out 'liar' first"



I already called you the one who makes up stories from 1953.  A bore, too.  Where is the experiment to show amino acids formed a protein in the lab?  You said it was basic organic chemistry.  I said it took a living organism to form amino acids into protein.  The amino acids come from our food.  Why don't you give me your credit card number and letter of authorization and I'll go dine at a fine steakhouse and convert it to protein.  You continue to do that weekly and I'll post a pic of my bod after 90 days.  I'll do before and after pics.

"The body needs 20 different amino acids to maintain good health and normal functioning. People must obtain nine of these amino acids, called the essential amino acids, through food. Good dietary sources include meat, eggs, tofu, soy, buckwheat, quinoa, and dairy.

Amino acids are compounds that combine to make proteins. When a person eats a food that contains protein, their digestive system breaks the protein down into amino acids. The body then combines the amino acids in various ways to carry out bodily functions.

A healthy body can manufacture the other 11 amino acids, so these do not usually need to enter the body through the diet.

Amino acids build muscles, cause chemical reactions in the body, transport nutrients, prevent illness, and carry out other functions. Amino acid deficiency can result in decreased immunity, digestive problems, depression, fertility issues, lower mental alertness, slowed growth in children, and many other health issues.

Each of the essential amino acids plays a different role in the body, and the symptoms of deficiency vary accordingly."









						Essential amino acids: Definition, benefits, and foods
					

Amino acids help the body maintain optimal health. They are part of many foods, including meat, fish, beans, and nuts. Learn more about essential amino acids here.




					www.medicalnewstoday.com
				






ReinyDays said:


> Making proteins is easy ... kitchen counter chemistry ... making amino acids is trickier ... but alanine is simple enough ...
> There are several amino acids that are not chiral ... look that word up in the dictionary because you're using it wrong ...



Another lie.  You do it from the amino acids we find in the atmosphere or wherever you think abiogenesis happens.  In space?  In the hot geyser?  In warm ponds?  Notice you never talk about abiogenesis but continue to spout your mumbo jumbo you liar.


----------



## james bond

GLASNOST said:


> Please do not feign surprise.



Why would I be surprised?  You're the one claiming it will happen and it hasn't in how many billions of years now haha.  6,000 may as well be going on 4.5 billion.


----------



## james bond

GLASNOST said:


> Oh! Truth ..... brutal and naked! “Creation science" is half-assed damage control.



You sound smart, but it's only partially right.  Evolution 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 is "half-assed damage control."

Let's look at Darwin.  He didn't think 3 billion years was enough.  Thus, evo was in mothballs until... what exactly?


----------



## GLASNOST

james bond said:


> ... you are spouting mumbo jumbo.
> 
> 
> GLASNOST said:
> 
> 
> 
> Please do not feign surprise.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why would I be surprised?  You're the one claiming it will happen and it hasn't in how many billions of years now haha.  6,000 may as well be going on 4.5 billion.
Click to expand...



Not me. You have me confused with the guy I told you not to be surprised that he's *"spouting mumbo jumbo". *


----------



## ReinyDays

james bond said:


> ReinyDays said:
> 
> 
> 
> "It's the liar who calls out 'liar' first"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I already called you the one who makes up stories from 1953.  A bore, too.  Where is the experiment to show amino acids formed a protein in the lab?  You said it was basic organic chemistry.  I said it took a living organism to form amino acids into protein.  The amino acids come from our food.  Why don't you give me your credit card number and letter of authorization and I'll go dine at a fine steakhouse and convert it to protein.  You continue to do that weekly and I'll post a pic of my bod after 90 days.  I'll do before and after pics.
> 
> "The body needs 20 different amino acids to maintain good health and normal functioning. People must obtain nine of these amino acids, called the essential amino acids, through food. Good dietary sources include meat, eggs, tofu, soy, buckwheat, quinoa, and dairy.
> 
> Amino acids are compounds that combine to make proteins. When a person eats a food that contains protein, their digestive system breaks the protein down into amino acids. The body then combines the amino acids in various ways to carry out bodily functions.
> 
> A healthy body can manufacture the other 11 amino acids, so these do not usually need to enter the body through the diet.
> 
> Amino acids build muscles, cause chemical reactions in the body, transport nutrients, prevent illness, and carry out other functions. Amino acid deficiency can result in decreased immunity, digestive problems, depression, fertility issues, lower mental alertness, slowed growth in children, and many other health issues.
> 
> Each of the essential amino acids plays a different role in the body, and the symptoms of deficiency vary accordingly."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Essential amino acids: Definition, benefits, and foods
> 
> 
> Amino acids help the body maintain optimal health. They are part of many foods, including meat, fish, beans, and nuts. Learn more about essential amino acids here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.medicalnewstoday.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ReinyDays said:
> 
> 
> 
> Making proteins is easy ... kitchen counter chemistry ... making amino acids is trickier ... but alanine is simple enough ...
> There are several amino acids that are not chiral ... look that word up in the dictionary because you're using it wrong ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Another lie.  You do it from the amino acids we find in the atmosphere or wherever you think abiogenesis happens.  In space?  In the hot geyser?  In warm ponds?  Notice you never talk about abiogenesis but continue to spout your mumbo jumbo you liar.
Click to expand...


"Utilizing Unnatural Amino Acids To Illustrate Protein Structure–Function Relationships: An Experiment Designed for an Undergraduate Biochemistry Laboratory" --- Maza _et. al._ --- ACS Publications --- Jan 28th, 2016 ... hoods are for girls, _you_ can do this in your kitchen ...

We're using A.I. Oparin's derivation of abiogenesis ... "once is enough" ... as this works exceptional well as we move on in time ... only one Coronavirus mutated into SARS-CoV-2, and then divided like crazy to infect the whole world ... that mutation need only happen once ... 

This might shock you, but there is a non-zero probability for two methane molecules and an ammonia molecule to collide in just the right way to form alanine ... and this probability is greatly increased when these molecules are dissolved in water ... methane, ammonia and water are abundant in the universe ... seems just having water in it's liquid state on the surface of a rocky planet is all we need to form life ... 

God zapping dust into humans is your claim ... biologists claim a slow step-wise development from very simple structures into more complex structures and eventually into very simple bacteria ... 

You've become very hateful, and are resurrecting the Spirit of Satan ... you've created yourself and have disdained God's hand ... "liar" is quick to your lips, one calls their own judgement whether they know it or not ...


----------



## james bond

ReinyDays said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ReinyDays said:
> 
> 
> 
> "It's the liar who calls out 'liar' first"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I already called you the one who makes up stories from 1953.  A bore, too.  Where is the experiment to show amino acids formed a protein in the lab?  You said it was basic organic chemistry.  I said it took a living organism to form amino acids into protein.  The amino acids come from our food.  Why don't you give me your credit card number and letter of authorization and I'll go dine at a fine steakhouse and convert it to protein.  You continue to do that weekly and I'll post a pic of my bod after 90 days.  I'll do before and after pics.
> 
> "The body needs 20 different amino acids to maintain good health and normal functioning. People must obtain nine of these amino acids, called the essential amino acids, through food. Good dietary sources include meat, eggs, tofu, soy, buckwheat, quinoa, and dairy.
> 
> Amino acids are compounds that combine to make proteins. When a person eats a food that contains protein, their digestive system breaks the protein down into amino acids. The body then combines the amino acids in various ways to carry out bodily functions.
> 
> A healthy body can manufacture the other 11 amino acids, so these do not usually need to enter the body through the diet.
> 
> Amino acids build muscles, cause chemical reactions in the body, transport nutrients, prevent illness, and carry out other functions. Amino acid deficiency can result in decreased immunity, digestive problems, depression, fertility issues, lower mental alertness, slowed growth in children, and many other health issues.
> 
> Each of the essential amino acids plays a different role in the body, and the symptoms of deficiency vary accordingly."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Essential amino acids: Definition, benefits, and foods
> 
> 
> Amino acids help the body maintain optimal health. They are part of many foods, including meat, fish, beans, and nuts. Learn more about essential amino acids here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.medicalnewstoday.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ReinyDays said:
> 
> 
> 
> Making proteins is easy ... kitchen counter chemistry ... making amino acids is trickier ... but alanine is simple enough ...
> There are several amino acids that are not chiral ... look that word up in the dictionary because you're using it wrong ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Another lie.  You do it from the amino acids we find in the atmosphere or wherever you think abiogenesis happens.  In space?  In the hot geyser?  In warm ponds?  Notice you never talk about abiogenesis but continue to spout your mumbo jumbo you liar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Utilizing Unnatural Amino Acids To Illustrate Protein Structure–Function Relationships: An Experiment Designed for an Undergraduate Biochemistry Laboratory" --- Maza _et. al._ --- ACS Publications --- Jan 28th, 2016 ... hoods are for girls, _you_ can do this in your kitchen ...
> 
> " ... as this works exceptional well as we move on in time ... only one Coronavirus mutated into SARS-CoV-2, and then divided like crazy to infect the whole world ... that mutation need only happen once ...
> 
> This might shock you, but there is a non-zero probability for two methane molecules and an ammonia molecule to collide in just the right way to form alanine ... and this probability is greatly increased when these molecules are dissolved in water ... methane, ammonia and water are abundant in the universe ... seems just having water in it's liquid state on the surface of a rocky planet is all we need to form life ...
> 
> God zapping dust into humans is your claim ... biologists claim a slow step-wise development from very simple structures into more complex structures and eventually into very simple bacteria ...
> 
> You've become very hateful, and are resurrecting the Spirit of Satan ... you've created yourself and have disdained God's hand ... "liar" is quick to your lips, one calls their own judgement whether they know it or not ...
Click to expand...






Haha.  You may as be Joe Biden light with your weird science.



ReinyDays said:


> We're using A.I. Oparin's derivation of abiogenesis



This is more of the same argument for aliens in the vastness of the universe.  We have no intelligent aliens.  We also have no microbe aliens.

You just admitted there are no experiments to produce abiogenesis.  We can conclude life just does not happen through abiogenesis.  What it does show is God created all kinds of life and reproduction as written in Genesis and it has come to this,



ReinyDays said:


> God zapping dust into humans is your claim



And to dust we shall return which is what happens.  We also find plenty of carbon in the soil, so there is your evidence for both.


----------



## james bond

GLASNOST said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... you are spouting mumbo jumbo.
> 
> 
> GLASNOST said:
> 
> 
> 
> Please do not feign surprise.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why would I be surprised?  You're the one claiming it will happen and it hasn't in how many billions of years now haha.  6,000 may as well be going on 4.5 billion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Not me. You have me confused with the guy I told you not to be surprised that he's *"spouting mumbo jumbo". *
Click to expand...


Oh, okay.  The other guy may as well have Mumbo Jumbo as his nick.


----------



## GLASNOST

james bond said:


> ..... The other guy may as well have Mumbo Jumbo as his nick.


Just as well.


----------



## Thevolunteerwino

Blackrook said:


> Here's what I think.
> 
> One planet in the universe has intelligent life: Earth.
> 
> One form of intelligent life exists in the universe: humans.
> 
> One universe exists, there are no others: our universe.
> 
> Prove me wrong.


I understand if you dont think your God could create other life or a diverse universe.  But mine can.
  So if it cant be proven it doesnt exist- wow a religous man who denies faith
I myself dont always rely on needing proof for everything.  Sometimes I just look at the possibilities.


----------



## danielpalos

Atheists know they can't take theists seriously if we have the expense of Government instead of being moral enough to obey a few simple Commandments from God.


----------



## Crepitus

Blackrook said:


> But belief in these theories are more wishful thinking than reality.
> 
> The concept that there are an infinite number of parallel universes is poppycock. Even if true, there will never be a way to prove it.
> 
> If extra-terrestrial civilizations existed, we'd know it by now. We've been listening for their radio signals for decades and in all that time we've heard squat.
> 
> The reality is that atheist scientists have pushed belief in these notions because they hate Christianity and want to undermine people's faith in religion.


Who sold you that line not bullshit?


----------



## Peace

Blackrook said:


> But belief in these theories are more wishful thinking than reality.
> 
> The concept that there are an infinite number of parallel universes is poppycock. Even if true, there will never be a way to prove it.
> 
> If extra-terrestrial civilizations existed, we'd know it by now. We've been listening for their radio signals for decades and in all that time we've heard squat.
> 
> The reality is that atheist scientists have pushed belief in these notions because they hate Christianity and want to undermine people's faith in religion.



Actually Alien Civilizations would not be interested in us at all seeing we are the cockroaches of the Universe...

Believing in a Divine shouldn’t close your mind to other life forms in the Universe or possibility of multiple Universes...

Hell people thought the World was flat and now we know there are planets and many other stars in our Universe...


----------



## mamooth

Blackrook said:


> The concept that there are an infinite number of parallel universes is poppycock. Even if true, there will never be a way to prove it.



Who are these atheists supposedly pushing the multiple universe theory? I've never encountered one, so I don't know why anyone would imply that atheists embrace the theory.



> If extra-terrestrial civilizations existed, we'd know it by now. We've been listening for their radio signals for decades and in all that time we've heard squat.



Not true. Needle in a haystack thing. Space is big. Really, really big. If that radio telescope isn't aimed exactly at the right speck of sky, and a beacon isn't aimed in our direction, we won't pick up anything. SETI could only find massively powered beacons, not earth-like civilizations. That is, we can only find civilizations that want to be found.

It is telling that we haven't found any such civlizations. That at least disproves the most optimistic theories of alien life. It's awful quiet out there, and that suggests caution. Maybe the other civilizations are laying low for a reason. Maybe the noisy ant gets stepped on. Our radio transmissions fade to below background after about 10 light years, and that's a good thing. We're probably still hidden, unless we start building beacons ourselves.


----------



## james bond

Here's an idea from one atheist:


----------



## justinacolmena

Grumblenuts said:


> failing eyesight? Heart disease? Hearing loss?


Some old people are not affected by these issues. Radiation as for cancer treatment etc. can cause loss of hair, teeth, hearing?
Moses said eye for an eye, and he had crystal clear eyesight right up to his death at 120 years of age. 


Grumblenuts said:


> Why have us fall apart as we grow older?


Doctors are full of shit and find devious ways to poison us.


----------



## K9Buck

Blackrook said:


> But belief in these theories are more wishful thinking than reality.
> 
> The concept that there are an infinite number of parallel universes is poppycock. Even if true, there will never be a way to prove it.
> 
> If extra-terrestrial civilizations existed, we'd know it by now. We've been listening for their radio signals for decades and in all that time we've heard squat.
> 
> The reality is that atheist scientists have pushed belief in these notions because they hate Christianity and want to undermine people's faith in religion.



There may be an infinite number of universes, but a creator is still required to create them.  Even if true, it solves nothing for the atheist argument regarding the existence of a creator.


----------



## K9Buck

alang1216 said:


> So why did God create billions of galaxies with billions of stars?  Most of those stars in distant galaxies we'll never even see so they were probably not made for us.  Who then?



Perhaps God did, indeed, create all of those far-off stars just for us.  
I'll take it a step further.  

What if this life is just for you?  In other words, what if your entire universe was created just for you in order to help you to grow and to learn in order to evolve into a wiser, better, life form?

Take a hit of acid and ponder on that one for a while.


----------



## K9Buck

What's both ironic and funny to me is that, many atheists will gladly accept the theory of alternate universes but, if one suggests that there are other realms called "Heaven" and "Hell', they accuse you of believing in "sky fairies", etc.  LOL!


----------



## justinacolmena

K9Buck said:


> There may be an infinite number of universes, but a creator is still required to create them. Even if true, it solves nothing for the atheist argument regarding the existence of a creator.


Atheists aren't God. Multiple universes don't exist because atheists want them to exist.
Our current universe evidently does exist, because God wants it to exist.
By definitition, the “universe” is the totality of all that exists, «iankaikkisuus» as well as «kaikkivaltias» in Finnish.


----------



## james bond

Crepitus said:


> Blackrook said:
> 
> 
> 
> But belief in these theories are more wishful thinking than reality.
> 
> The concept that there are an infinite number of parallel universes is poppycock. Even if true, there will never be a way to prove it.
> 
> If extra-terrestrial civilizations existed, we'd know it by now. We've been listening for their radio signals for decades and in all that time we've heard squat.
> 
> The reality is that atheist scientists have pushed belief in these notions because they hate Christianity and want to undermine people's faith in religion.
> 
> 
> 
> Who sold you that line not bullshit?
Click to expand...


I know how we can show multiverses don't exist.  If there is a parallel universe, then one should be able to go back in time.  Stephen Hawking wrote about it A Brief History of Time and he believed it.  However, God has made it so that one can only travel forward in time.  I can show everyone here how to do that.  However, there is no way to go back in time because there is no parallel universe to go back to.  There you go.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blackrook said:
> 
> 
> 
> But belief in these theories are more wishful thinking than reality.
> 
> The concept that there are an infinite number of parallel universes is poppycock. Even if true, there will never be a way to prove it.
> 
> If extra-terrestrial civilizations existed, we'd know it by now. We've been listening for their radio signals for decades and in all that time we've heard squat.
> 
> The reality is that atheist scientists have pushed belief in these notions because they hate Christianity and want to undermine people's faith in religion.
> 
> 
> 
> Who sold you that line not bullshit?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know how we can show multiverses don't exist.  If there is a parallel universe, then one should be able to go back in time.  Stephen Hawking wrote about it A Brief History of Time and he believed it.  However, God has made it so that one can only travel forward in time.  I can show everyone here how to do that.  However, there is no way to go back in time because there is no parallel universe to go back to.  There you go.
Click to expand...

Promoting something with 100% certainty when supported by 0% facts doesn’t give anyone confidence that your “... because I say so” commandments are anything but rhetoric.


----------



## alang1216

K9Buck said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So why did God create billions of galaxies with billions of stars?  Most of those stars in distant galaxies we'll never even see so they were probably not made for us.  Who then?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps God did, indeed, create all of those far-off stars just for us.
> I'll take it a step further.
> 
> What if this life is just for you?  In other words, what if your entire universe was created just for you in order to help you to grow and to learn in order to evolve into a wiser, better, life form?
> 
> Take a hit of acid and ponder on that one for a while.
Click to expand...

What if pigs had wings...?  Unless you have some evidence I don't know about, I'll pass on your acid offer and ponders something else.  Thanks anyway.


----------



## Deplorable Yankee

What if et civilizations also believe in a God?


----------



## Hollie

Deplorable Yankee said:


> What if et civilizations also believe in a God?


We would have to kill them to prove their god is a false god.


----------



## badbob85037

Blackrook said:


> But belief in these theories are more wishful thinking than reality.
> 
> The concept that there are an infinite number of parallel universes is poppycock. Even if true, there will never be a way to prove it.
> 
> If extra-terrestrial civilizations existed, we'd know it by now. We've been listening for their radio signals for decades and in all that time we've heard squat.
> 
> The reality is that atheist scientists have pushed belief in these notions because they hate Christianity and want to undermine people's faith in religion.


Are you sure it don't have anything to do with them just being real stupid?


----------



## dblack

Blackrook said:


> Here's what I think.
> 
> One planet in the universe has intelligent life: Earth.
> 
> One form of intelligent life exists in the universe: humans.
> 
> One universe exists, there are no others: our universe.
> 
> Prove me wrong.


Why?


----------



## GLASNOST

james bond said:


> I know how we can show multiverses don't exist.  If there is a parallel universe, then one should be able to go back in time.  Stephen Hawking wrote about it A Brief History of Time and he believed it.  However, God has made it so that one can only travel forward in time.  I can show everyone here how to do that.  However, there is no way to go back in time because there is no parallel universe to go back to.  There you go.


 
What you say is not true. You see, those who believe in your God can only travel forward in time but those who believe in other monotheistic Gods can travel in multi-directions: forwards, backwards, from side to side, and even diagonally in omni-gradients. So, the fact that you can only travel in one direction is proof that you believe in the _“wrong”_ God. But don’t worry, I am an Agnostic so I am stuck with the same uni-directional, basic 101 time-progression limitations as you. The difference between you and I is that I’m content with it.


----------



## miketx

Blackrook said:


> But belief in these theories are more wishful thinking than reality.
> 
> The concept that there are an infinite number of parallel universes is poppycock. Even if true, there will never be a way to prove it.
> 
> If extra-terrestrial civilizations existed, we'd know it by now. We've been listening for their radio signals for decades and in all that time we've heard squat.
> 
> The reality is that atheist scientists have pushed belief in these notions because they hate Christianity and want to undermine people's faith in religion.


You ever think that maybe they don't use radio?


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blackrook said:
> 
> 
> 
> But belief in these theories are more wishful thinking than reality.
> 
> The concept that there are an infinite number of parallel universes is poppycock. Even if true, there will never be a way to prove it.
> 
> If extra-terrestrial civilizations existed, we'd know it by now. We've been listening for their radio signals for decades and in all that time we've heard squat.
> 
> The reality is that atheist scientists have pushed belief in these notions because they hate Christianity and want to undermine people's faith in religion.
> 
> 
> 
> Who sold you that line not bullshit?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know how we can show multiverses don't exist.  If there is a parallel universe, then one should be able to go back in time.  Stephen Hawking wrote about it A Brief History of Time and he believed it.  However, God has made it so that one can only travel forward in time.  I can show everyone here how to do that.  However, there is no way to go back in time because there is no parallel universe to go back to.  There you go.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Promoting something with 100% certainty when supported by 0% facts doesn’t give anyone confidence that your “... because I say so” commandments are anything but rhetoric.
Click to expand...


It's 100% certain as we do not have evidence of parallel universes nor multiverses still.  Do you want to see how someone can travel forward in time from Einstein's theory?  I can back up what I claim, but you and the atheists can't.  What theory do you have?  Science fiction theater?  Time travel to the past is still hypothesis or what I call make believe stuff.

Moreover, it has been the same with aliens for even longer time.  We would've been contacted by or would've found intelligent aliens by now.  I think NASA is resigned to this as they are only looking for liquid water and microbes in the universe now.  They'll be sending other rovers this decade and human expedition in the 2030s.


----------



## james bond

alang1216 said:


> What if pigs had wings...?



They still wouldn't be able to fly because of being too heavy and aerodynamics.  Also, their nature of liking to play in slop.


----------



## GLASNOST

james bond said:


> It's 100% certain as we do not have evidence of parallel universes nor multiverses still. ........................


There's all kinds of evidence of parallel universes. The problem with Christians is that they have no faith in God so they refused to "believe".



james bond said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What if pigs had wings...?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They still wouldn't be able to fly because of being too heavy and aerodynamics.  Also, their nature of liking to play in slop.
Click to expand...

Do you have any idea how wrong you are about pigs?


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blackrook said:
> 
> 
> 
> But belief in these theories are more wishful thinking than reality.
> 
> The concept that there are an infinite number of parallel universes is poppycock. Even if true, there will never be a way to prove it.
> 
> If extra-terrestrial civilizations existed, we'd know it by now. We've been listening for their radio signals for decades and in all that time we've heard squat.
> 
> The reality is that atheist scientists have pushed belief in these notions because they hate Christianity and want to undermine people's faith in religion.
> 
> 
> 
> Who sold you that line not bullshit?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know how we can show multiverses don't exist.  If there is a parallel universe, then one should be able to go back in time.  Stephen Hawking wrote about it A Brief History of Time and he believed it.  However, God has made it so that one can only travel forward in time.  I can show everyone here how to do that.  However, there is no way to go back in time because there is no parallel universe to go back to.  There you go.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Promoting something with 100% certainty when supported by 0% facts doesn’t give anyone confidence that your “... because I say so” commandments are anything but rhetoric.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's 100% certain as we do not have evidence of parallel universes nor multiverses still.  Do you want to see how someone can travel forward in time from Einstein's theory?  I can back up what I claim, but you and the atheists can't.  What theory do you have?  Science fiction theater?  Time travel to the past is still hypothesis or what I call make believe stuff.
> 
> Moreover, it has been the same with aliens for even longer time.  We would've been contacted by or would've found intelligent aliens by now.  I think NASA is resigned to this as they are only looking for liquid water and microbes in the universe now.  They'll be sending other rovers this decade and human expedition in the 2030s.
Click to expand...

You seem to be driving in that Cul-de-sac of unsubstantiated claims such as "God has made it so that one can only travel forward in time." To suggest that you can "back up" such a claim is false and misleading. 

Let's look at your claim wherein you insist: "We would've been contacted by or would've found intelligent aliens by now." That's really nonsensical as you're putting a completely arbitrary timeline on a matter that is not in any way connected to your timeline. Such bellicose statements presuming 100% certainty with 0% facts is pointless.


----------



## GLASNOST

Hollie said:


> You seem to be driving in that Cul-de-sac of unsubstantiated claims such as "God has made it so that one can only travel forward in time." To suggest that you can "back up" such a claim is false and misleading.
> 
> Let's look at your claim wherein you insist: "We would've been contacted by or would've found intelligent aliens by now." That's really nonsensical as you're putting a completely arbitrary timeline on a matter that is not in any way connected to your timeline. Such bellicose statements presuming 100% certainty with 0% facts is pointless.


Are you mad? It's in the bible! There can be no more credible source than that! It's "God's word" and that is all the proof anyone needs!


----------



## K9Buck

alang1216 said:


> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So why did God create billions of galaxies with billions of stars?  Most of those stars in distant galaxies we'll never even see so they were probably not made for us.  Who then?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps God did, indeed, create all of those far-off stars just for us.
> I'll take it a step further.
> 
> What if this life is just for you?  In other words, what if your entire universe was created just for you in order to help you to grow and to learn in order to evolve into a wiser, better, life form?
> 
> Take a hit of acid and ponder on that one for a while.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What if pigs had wings...?  Unless you have some evidence I don't know about, I'll pass on your acid offer and ponders something else.  Thanks anyway.
Click to expand...


Calm down Karen, it's going to be ok.


----------



## james bond

GLASNOST said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's 100% certain as we do not have evidence of parallel universes nor multiverses still. ........................
> 
> 
> 
> There's all kinds of evidence of parallel universes. The problem with Christians is that they have no faith in God so they refused to "believe".
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What if pigs had wings...?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They still wouldn't be able to fly because of being too heavy and aerodynamics.  Also, their nature of liking to play in slop.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you have any idea how wrong you are about pigs?
Click to expand...


I don't think so in terms of flying, but what do you got?


----------



## Hollie

GLASNOST said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> You seem to be driving in that Cul-de-sac of unsubstantiated claims such as "God has made it so that one can only travel forward in time." To suggest that you can "back up" such a claim is false and misleading.
> 
> Let's look at your claim wherein you insist: "We would've been contacted by or would've found intelligent aliens by now." That's really nonsensical as you're putting a completely arbitrary timeline on a matter that is not in any way connected to your timeline. Such bellicose statements presuming 100% certainty with 0% facts is pointless.
> 
> 
> 
> Are you mad? It's in the bible! There can be no more credible source than that! It's "God's word" and that is all the proof anyone needs!
Click to expand...

Some folks are more discriminating than you. Nothing about the Bible is “God’s word”. The Bibles were written by many authors, most of whom are unknown. None of the gods had any direct connection to anything written in the Bibles.


----------



## GLASNOST

james bond said:


> GLASNOST said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's 100% certain as we do not have evidence of parallel universes nor multiverses still. ........................
> 
> 
> 
> There's all kinds of evidence of parallel universes. The problem with Christians is that they have no faith in God so they refused to "believe".
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What if pigs had wings...?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They still wouldn't be able to fly because of being too heavy and aerodynamics.  Also, their nature of liking to play in slop.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you have any idea how wrong you are about pigs?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't think so in terms of flying, but what do you got?
Click to expand...

I don't understand your question.


----------



## GLASNOST

Hollie said:


> GLASNOST said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> You seem to be driving in that Cul-de-sac of unsubstantiated claims such as "God has made it so that one can only travel forward in time." To suggest that you can "back up" such a claim is false and misleading.
> 
> Let's look at your claim wherein you insist: "We would've been contacted by or would've found intelligent aliens by now." That's really nonsensical as you're putting a completely arbitrary timeline on a matter that is not in any way connected to your timeline. Such bellicose statements presuming 100% certainty with 0% facts is pointless.
> 
> 
> 
> Are you mad? It's in the bible! There can be no more credible source than that! It's "God's word" and that is all the proof anyone needs!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Some folks are more discriminating than you. Nothing about the Bible is “God’s word”. The Bibles were written by many authors, most of whom are unknown. None of the gods had any direct connection to anything written in the Bibles.
Click to expand...

I couldn't find a smiley with *"sarcasm"* written on it but I felt certain you'd understand it anyway.


----------



## ChemEngineer

GLASNOST said:


> There's all kinds of evidence of parallel universes. The problem with Christians is that they have no faith in God so they refused to "believe".



There is no such thing. It's quite impossible.  Nor did you even provide a microgram of your "evidence."
As to E.T., this:

NASA's Gold Record


----------



## ChemEngineer

GLASNOST said:


> Are you mad? It's in the bible! There can be no more credible source than that! It's "God's word" and that is all the proof anyone needs!


Your atheist pretensions are all refuted decisively here.  Read it and learn, if you can, if you dare.  It is so named to attract arrogant, condescending, pretentious atheists such as you.





__





						Proof There Is No God
					






					ProofThereIsNoGod.blogspot.com
				



You don't even understand that your arrogance is wrong in two ways, no three.

1.  Atheists have not demonstrated that they are remotely as intellectually superior as they/you insist.
2.  But IF they were, that does not make YOU smarter than everyone else.
3.  But IF you were, that is the fallacy of the argument from authority, and of course you Leftists pretend to be the authority on everything.

"Heavier than air human flight is impossible." - Lord Kelvin, President of the Royal Society, 1895


----------



## GLASNOST

ChemEngineer said:


> GLASNOST said:
> 
> 
> 
> There's all kinds of evidence of parallel universes. The problem with Christians is that they have no faith in God so they refused to "believe".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is no such thing. It's quite impossible.  Nor did you even provide a microgram of your "evidence."
> As to E.T., this:
> 
> NASA's Gold Record
Click to expand...

So you are a _*"double standardist"*_? Where is _*"the microgram of evidence"*_ that supports the Christian God? 



ChemEngineer said:


> GLASNOST said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you mad? It's in the bible! There can be no more credible source than that! It's "God's word" and that is all the proof anyone needs!
> 
> 
> 
> Your atheist pretensions are all refuted decisively here.  Read it and learn, if you can, if you dare.  It is so named to attract arrogant, condescending, pretentious atheists such as you....
Click to expand...

You are not paying attention. I am not an *"atheist"* in any way, shape, or form.


----------



## alang1216

james bond said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What if pigs had wings...?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They still wouldn't be able to fly because of being too heavy and aerodynamics.  Also, their nature of liking to play in slop.
Click to expand...

They said the same thing about the bumblebee.


----------



## james bond

GLASNOST said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GLASNOST said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's 100% certain as we do not have evidence of parallel universes nor multiverses still. ........................
> 
> 
> 
> There's all kinds of evidence of parallel universes. The problem with Christians is that they have no faith in God so they refused to "believe".
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What if pigs had wings...?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They still wouldn't be able to fly because of being too heavy and aerodynamics.  Also, their nature of liking to play in slop.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you have any idea how wrong you are about pigs?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't think so in terms of flying, but what do you got?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't understand your question.
Click to expand...


Do you believe in multiverses and parallel universes?  How does it happen?  What evidence do you have for it?


----------



## GLASNOST

alang1216 said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What if pigs had wings...?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They still wouldn't be able to fly because of being too heavy and aerodynamics.  Also, their nature of liking to play in slop.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They said the same thing about the bumblebee.
Click to expand...

That is exactly what I was thinking about.


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> You seem to be driving in that Cul-de-sac of unsubstantiated claims such as "God has made it so that one can only travel forward in time." To suggest that you can "back up" such a claim is false and misleading.



First, it is atheists who believe that they can travel _backward_ in time.  From what I read of Stephen Hawking articles and A Brief History of Time and A Briefer History of Time, it is possible because of parallel universes from the multiverse concept.  Hawking always talked about the multiverse, so you probably have to believe it first.  Traveling forward in time can be done by using Einstein special theory of relativity.

It sounds as if you don't believe in multiverses and good thing.  It will lead you to more wacky liberal ideas.


----------



## GLASNOST

james bond said:


> GLASNOST said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GLASNOST said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's 100% certain as we do not have evidence of parallel universes nor multiverses still. ........................
> 
> 
> 
> There's all kinds of evidence of parallel universes. The problem with Christians is that they have no faith in God so they refused to "believe".
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What if pigs had wings...?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They still wouldn't be able to fly because of being too heavy and aerodynamics.  Also, their nature of liking to play in slop.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you have any idea how wrong you are about pigs?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't think so in terms of flying, but what do you got?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't understand your question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you believe in multiverses and parallel universes?  How does it happen?  What evidence do you have for it?
Click to expand...

What *I* *believe* has nothing to do with it. *You* are the one who said it was impossible and that *you can prove it*. Where is this *proof* of yours?


----------



## JoeB131

Blackrook said:


> But belief in these theories are more wishful thinking than reality.



Well, it would be really cool if there were.   



Blackrook said:


> If extra-terrestrial civilizations existed, we'd know it by now. We've been listening for their radio signals for decades and in all that time we've heard squat.



Why would we know by now.   Maybe those civilizations don't use something as primitive as "radio".  Also, the Stars themselves give out far more radio energy than a planet does, so picking out this guy from all the background noise would be difficult. 








Blackrook said:


> The reality is that atheist scientists have pushed belief in these notions because they hate Christianity and want to undermine people's faith in religion.



Actually, scientists are kind of skeptical....  it's usually the Scientists who get out there and debunk UFO sightings and stories of aliens abducting people.  

Belief in UFO's is just another mythology...  

What undermines Christianity...  There are 8 BILLION humans on Planet earth and only 2 billion of them believe in Jesus.


----------



## GLASNOST

james bond said:


> .....  travel _backward_ in time.  From what I read of Stephen Hawking .....  it is possible because of parallel universes from the multiverse concept.  Hawking always talked about the multiverse .....


And?



james bond said:


> Traveling forward in time can be done _*by using Einstein special theory of relativity*_*.*


And? Parallel universes can be done *by using Stephen Hawking's theory of multiuniverse. *What is it that you do not understand?


----------



## Moonglow

Evidently you have never studied Mormonism.


Blackrook said:


> But belief in these theories are more wishful thinking than reality.
> 
> The concept that there are an infinite number of parallel universes is poppycock. Even if true, there will never be a way to prove it.
> 
> If extra-terrestrial civilizations existed, we'd know it by now. We've been listening for their radio signals for decades and in all that time we've heard squat.
> 
> The reality is that atheist scientists have pushed belief in these notions because they hate Christianity and want to undermine people's faith in religion.


----------



## JoeB131

GLASNOST said:


> I disagree. You say "Belief = religion". OK, but .....
> 
> A religious person *believes* in God (for example). *"Belief = religion"*
> An Atheist *believes* there is no God.* "Belief = religion"*
> An agnostic *doesn't believe* in anything. *No belief, no religion.*



Um, no, belief isn't the same thing of religion.  Your analogy fails.  

If Atheism is a religion, than Not Collecting Stamps is a hobby, and Off is a TV channel.


----------



## james bond

GLASNOST said:


> What *I* *believe* has nothing to do with it. *You* are the one who said it was impossible and that *you can prove it*. Where is this *proof* of yours?



Have you met that cretin harmonica?  You and him should really hit it off.


----------



## james bond

JoeB131 said:


> GLASNOST said:
> 
> 
> 
> I disagree. You say "Belief = religion". OK, but .....
> 
> A religious person *believes* in God (for example). *"Belief = religion"*
> An Atheist *believes* there is no God.* "Belief = religion"*
> An agnostic *doesn't believe* in anything. *No belief, no religion.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Um, no, belief isn't the same thing of religion.  Your analogy fails.
> 
> If Atheism is a religion, than Not Collecting Stamps is a hobby, and Off is a TV channel.
Click to expand...


You believe in a stupid religion.  Get real.


----------



## james bond

alang1216 said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What if pigs had wings...?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They still wouldn't be able to fly because of being too heavy and aerodynamics.  Also, their nature of liking to play in slop.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They said the same thing about the bumblebee.
Click to expand...


The bumblebee likes to play in slop?


----------



## JoeB131

james bond said:


> Furthermore, the Bible does not state God created aliens nor Jesus died to save aliens. The hard evidence is none has been found despite SETI, optical SETI, Alien Telescope Array, space explorations and fly bys with probes and powerful telescopes. There are other methods of contact which have been explored, but still nothing.



Which means all of nothing.  I never thought SETI was a good idea, because it assumes other civilizations would use radio, even though Radio is on the decline on this planet even as we speak.  The Stars give out far more radio energy than our feeble transmitters do, so it would be like trying to pick out one voice in a roaring crowd in a stadium. 

Our Space Explorations haven't even taken us out of THIS solar system yet.  No one really thought other planets in this solar system have life on them.   But billions of stars, billions of planets, some of them probably do have life on them.   When you are talking about the cosmic scales of time and space, whole civilizations could have risen and fallen and we'd never know about it.  



james bond said:


> It also proves God is the creator. More evidence for God than abiogenesis or aliens because we found a book that explains step-by-step how it happened.



Um. Okay, so why is YAHWEH that God and not Krishna or Allah or Amaterasu?   Heck, it could have even been Zeus or Odin or Quetzalcoatl. 

So.  Yahweh creates life on this planet and waits four billion years for people to start worshipping him, and 80% of them worship someone else or no one at all.  Man, that has to be disappointing for him. 

The problem with you young Earth Creationists is that your God seems kind of small.  If God created the world 6000 years ago, then why are there stars where the light is only reaches us now, Hundreds of thousands or even millions of years later?  Did he create all those stars just for fun, and then got serious about creating the one planet with life on it that he could torture the inhabitants into worshipping him?


----------



## JoeB131

james bond said:


> You believe in a stupid religion. Get real.



I believe in no religion. 

Now, for those playing along at home, I was raised Catholic and went to Catholic schools for 12 years.  And I figured out it was all pretty much bullshit by the time I was 11.  

Sr. Mary Butch: "And God sent a flood to drown everyone except Noah and his family!"
Little Joey: "Um, Sister, why did God drown all the babies?" 
Sr. Mary Butch:  "They were WICKKKKEEEED BABIES.. WIIIIIIICKED!!!!!"  

Yup, pretty fucked up shit there... couldn't get away from it fast enough.


----------



## GLASNOST

james bond said:


> You believe in a stupid religion.  Get real.


You believe in a stupid religion. Get real.


----------



## GLASNOST

JoeB131 said:


> I believe in no religion.
> 
> Now, for those playing along at home, I was raised Catholic and went to Catholic schools for 12 years.  And I figured out it was all pretty much bullshit by the time I was 11.
> 
> Sr. Mary Butch: "And God sent a flood to drown everyone except Noah and his family!"
> Little Joey: "Um, Sister, why did God drown all the babies?"
> Sr. Mary Butch:  "They were WICKKKKEEEED BABIES.. WIIIIIIICKED!!!!!"
> 
> Yup, pretty fucked up shit there... couldn't get away from it fast enough.


This is interesting because I was also raised a Catholic and went to Catholic school for 3 years.


*Sister Angelina:* _"To remain a true Catholic you must believe in the Trinity."_

*Glasnostim: *"_The Trinity?"_

*Sister Angelina:* _"That God is the Lord God, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost"_

*Glasnostim: *_"__You mean there are three Gods?"_

*Sister Angelina:* _"No, they are all the same God."_

*Glasnostim:* _"Huh?"_

*Sister Angelina:* _"And also that Maria was a Virgin"._

*Glasnostim:* _"But wasn't she married to Josef?"_

*Sister Angelina:* _"Yeah, but she never had sex with him."_

*Glasnostim:* _"So she got pregnant with another man?"_

*Sister Angelina:* _"No, she was just inseminated like whooosh”._

*Glasnost:* _"Huh?"_

*Sister Angelina:* _"And also that Jesus died for your sins."_

*Glasnostim:* _"But I wasn’t even born then to have committed any sins."_

*Sister Angelina:* _"And also that eating meat on a Friday is a mortal sin and you will go to hell for it if you do not confess it before you die."_

*Glasnostim:* _"But I heard that it is not a sin."_

*Sister Angelina:* _"Oh yeah I forgot, it’s not a mortal sin any more."_

*Glasnostim:* _"So God came down to earth and changed it?"_

*Sister Angelina:* _"Catechism is finished for today!"_

*** I ended up renouncing the *Catholic Church of Superstitions *when I became an adult.


----------



## ChemEngineer

GLASNOST said:


> So you are a _*"double standardist"*_? Where is _*"the microgram of evidence"*_ that supports the Christian God?











						Let's Examine Claims of Atheists
					






					AreAtheistsRight.blogspot.com
				




Read and learn.  Please.

You CLAIM not to be an atheist, but you sure walk, talk, and quack like one.  What exactly ARE you if not an atheist? Please give all the evidence for your belief, whatever it is.


----------



## ChemEngineer

GLASNOST said:


> I disagree. You say "Belief = religion". OK, but .....
> 
> A religious person *believes* in God (for example). *"Belief = religion"*
> An Atheist *believes* there is no God.* "Belief = religion"*
> An agnostic *doesn't believe* in anything. *No belief, no religion.*



Atheists are SMUGLY CERTAIN of their belief that THERE IS NO GOD.
The Supreme Court has adjudicated that atheism is a religion. Its proslytes preach it relentlessly, militantly, hatefully, destructively.

I can't keep up with all the atheist nonsense, but one of them said this:

*"Um, no, belief isn't the same thing of religion.  Your analogy fails.

If Atheism is a religion, than (sic) Not Collecting Stamps is a hobby, and Off is a TV channel."*

Ignorance begets more ignorance, parading around as intellectual sophistication.  It is anything but.


----------



## ReinyDays

ChemEngineer said:


> *"Um, no, belief isn't the same thing of religion.  Your analogy fails.*




Belief isn't religion ... I believe with a whole heart that alpha helices and beta sheets exist ... I have absolutely no idea how, when or why ... therefore I believe these things exist strictly on faith ... but that's not religion, someone in the world DOES understand all this ... and in fact with four years of college classes, I too could understand this ... it's not dogma, it's science ... 

Religion relies on dogma ... we must believe and have faith in things that are inexplicable ... mana from heaven ... walking snakes ... _Waterworld_ ... there's nothing anyone can do to learn and explain how all these things happened ... that's the difference ...

*


ChemEngineer said:



			If Atheism is a religion, than (sic) Not Collecting Stamps is a hobby, and Off is a TV channel."
		
Click to expand...

*
I haven't been collecting stamps for over ten years ... as a hobby ... what the hell are you talking about? ...


----------



## GLASNOST

ChemEngineer said:


> You CLAIM not to be an atheist but ...


So by saying that I "CLAIM" (in cap letters) 'not to be an atheist' is it then your insinuation that I might be lying? I don't know about you but I have neither shame nor reason to lie about anything I believe. Your brain isn't hooked up properly if you assume such silly things about "claiming" what one believes. 



ChemEngineer said:


> Atheists are SMUGLY CERTAIN of their belief that THERE IS NO GOD.


And what?



ChemEngineer said:


> What exactly ARE you if not an atheist? Please give all the evidence for your belief, whatever it is.


You want "*all *the evidence for my belief"? What sort of evidence are you looking for to demonstrate that I am an Agnostic? You are not a healthy person.


----------



## dblack

ChemEngineer said:


> GLASNOST said:
> 
> 
> 
> I disagree. You say "Belief = religion". OK, but .....
> 
> A religious person *believes* in God (for example). *"Belief = religion"*
> An Atheist *believes* there is no God.* "Belief = religion"*
> An agnostic *doesn't believe* in anything. *No belief, no religion.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Atheists are SMUGLY CERTAIN of their belief that THERE IS NO GOD.
Click to expand...


Not usually. Most atheists just lack faith.  You tend not to hear from them - because they have no particular axe to grind - but atheism isn't a denial of the possibility of gods. It's just a lack of conviction that they are there.


----------



## Slyhunter

Grumblenuts said:


> GLASNOST said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jackflash said:
> 
> 
> 
> Religion = belief. Belief = acceptance. Acceptance = evolution. Evolution = acceptance. Acceptance = belief. Belief = religion.
> 
> There are no atheists as you can see *EVERYONE has a religion ONE WAY OR THE OTHER.* I believe it was Dr. Stephen Hawking that said "Sometimes one has to use reverse engineering to verify the answer".
> 
> 
> 
> I disagree. You say "Belief = religion". OK, but .....
> 
> A religious person *believes* in God (for example). *"Belief = religion"*
> An Atheist *believes* there is no God.* "Belief = religion"*
> An agnostic *doesn't believe* in anything. *No belief, no religion.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sigh.
> 
> Per Google:
> atheist - "a person who disbelieves *or lacks belief* in the existence of God or gods."
> agnostic -  "a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; *a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief* in God."
> 
> Per logic:
> An agnostic is simply an atheist lacking the balls to admit they're an atheist.
Click to expand...

An Agnostic is open to the possibility of Gods existence.


----------



## GLASNOST

ChemEngineer said:


> Atheists are SMUGLY CERTAIN of their belief that THERE IS NO GOD.





Slyhunter said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GLASNOST said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jackflash said:
> 
> 
> 
> Religion = belief. Belief = acceptance. Acceptance = evolution. Evolution = acceptance. Acceptance = belief. Belief = religion.
> 
> There are no atheists as you can see *EVERYONE has a religion ONE WAY OR THE OTHER.* I believe it was Dr. Stephen Hawking that said "Sometimes one has to use reverse engineering to verify the answer".
> 
> 
> 
> I disagree. You say "Belief = religion". OK, but .....
> 
> A religious person *believes* in God (for example). *"Belief = religion"*
> An Atheist *believes* there is no God.* "Belief = religion"*
> An agnostic *doesn't believe* in anything. *No belief, no religion.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sigh.
> 
> Per Google:
> atheist - "a person who disbelieves *or lacks belief* in the existence of God or gods."
> agnostic -  "a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; *a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief* in God."
> 
> Per logic:
> An agnostic is simply an atheist lacking the balls to admit they're an atheist.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> An Agnostic is open to the possibility of Gods existence.
Click to expand...

Exactly.


----------



## james bond

JoeB131 said:


> Which means all of nothing. I never thought SETI was a good idea, because it assumes other civilizations would use radio, even though Radio is on the decline on this planet even as we speak. The Stars give out far more radio energy than our feeble transmitters do, so it would be like trying to pick out one voice in a roaring crowd in a stadium.
> 
> Our Space Explorations haven't even taken us out of THIS solar system yet. No one really thought other planets in this solar system have life on them. But billions of stars, billions of planets, some of them probably do have life on them. When you are talking about the cosmic scales of time and space, whole civilizations could have risen and fallen and we'd never know about it.



It means we find from science that there are no aliens.  We would've discovered or have been contacted from intelligent aliens one way or another by now.  The vastness of space is no reason from what we know.  As for SETI, it wasn't that way when it was set up.  You are using design of the future in communications to the past.  It isn't what the past would've told you at that time necessarily.  I'm not defending SETI, but it's not what is being supported by USG anymore.  If all they have are radio telescopes, then it's a waste of your money to fund them so I agree.

Today, we still complain about not having enough speed to communicate within our solar system.  Look at the Mars Rover communications and how they were designed -- Communications.  They're going to fly on Mars in 2021 and the commands to the copter will be from the Perserverance, not from control.  Regardless, if some aliens were more advanced then they would've sent something to let us know or they would've picked up our transmissions within the solar system we use now.



JoeB131 said:


> Um. Okay, so why is YAHWEH that God and not Krishna or Allah or Amaterasu? Heck, it could have even been Zeus or Odin or Quetzalcoatl.



The universe, Earth, and everything in it show that it was God based on science.  We needed to have the EMS in order to have the energy to power the universe.  We also needed a being that was all powerful, timeless, and spaceless.  I used to think and say God lives in the fourth dimension, but now I realize he is beyond the dimensions, too How many dimensions do we have?  I dunno.

As for the Greek and Roman gods, we found in the Bible that the apostles dissuaded them.  It's why we _know_ they are myths today.


----------



## james bond

JoeB131 said:


> I believe in no religion.
> 
> Now, for those playing along at home, I was raised Catholic and went to Catholic schools for 12 years. And I figured out it was all pretty much bullshit by the time I was 11.
> 
> Sr. Mary Butch: "And God sent a flood to drown everyone except Noah and his family!"
> Little Joey: "Um, Sister, why did God drown all the babies?"
> Sr. Mary Butch: "They were WICKKKKEEEED BABIES.. WIIIIIIICKED!!!!!"
> 
> Yup, pretty fucked up shit there... couldn't get away from it fast enough.



You grew up with Catholicism and it veered away from the original Christianity Jesus and the apostles taught.  I grew up with Catholicism, too, and figured out it wasn't true but that wasn't until I discovered the original Christianity in 2012.  Catholicism had added much different things to it.  I figured it was designed by the other religious figure.  One of the problems is if you try to figure out these things yourself is that what you hear is from radio waves.  He is the prince of the power of the air so can easily dissuade you away from Jesus and true Christianity.  I found true Christianity from participating and discussion with others.  Sure, I have my own thoughts on it, but it's mostly from what the religion teaches.


----------



## james bond

GLASNOST said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> You believe in a stupid religion.  Get real.
> 
> 
> 
> You believe in a stupid religion. Get real.
Click to expand...


If you are atheist, then you believe in a stupid religion.  Its science assumes there is no God or gods and only the natural.  At least, you don't say much so people won't know how stupid you are .


----------



## ChemEngineer

GLASNOST said:


> So by saying that I "CLAIM" (in cap letters) 'not to be an atheist' _*is it then your insinuation*_* that I might be lying?* I don't know about you but I have neither shame nor reason to lie about anything I believe. Your brain isn't hooked up properly if you assume such silly things about "claiming" what one believes.



You put your words in my mouth.  I did not say you "might be lying."  YOU said that.
But I don't see a dime's difference between smug atheists and smug agnostics except that the agnostics may be more smug and more condescending because they/you can always fall back on their/your lack of certainty.




> You want "*all *the evidence for my belief"? What sort of evidence are you looking for to demonstrate that I am an Agnostic? You are not a healthy person.



I asked for all your evidence. You provided zero.  Then you proceeded to judge my health  on the basis of your failure to answer a simple question.

You waste time and  say nothing.  Welcome to my Ignore List.  "Go  from the presence of a foolish man." - The Holy Bible

ciao brutto


----------



## JoeB131

james bond said:


> It means we find from science that there are no aliens. We would've discovered or have been contacted from intelligent aliens one way or another by now.



Why would we have?  We lack the ability to travel to their planets to find out if they are there or not. 








james bond said:


> The vastness of space is no reason from what we know. As for SETI, it wasn't that way when it was set up. You are using design of the future in communications to the past. It isn't what the past would've told you at that time necessarily. I'm not defending SETI, but it's not what is being supported by USG anymore. If all they have are radio telescopes, then it's a waste of your money to fund them so I agree.



Actually, Radio Telescopes are very useful for other things, such as measure the energy output of stars. 


Now, here's the gag.   We've only known that there was radio energy in space since 1932.  SETI only started operations since the 1980's... So we really haven't been looking long enough to find out one way or the other. 



james bond said:


> As for the Greek and Roman gods, we found in the Bible that the apostles dissuaded them. It's why we _know_ they are myths today.



Okay, so why do the majority of the people in the world worship Gods other than Yahweh?  If he was the only game in town, he would be the only God people in the world worship.  

I mean, if I was going to pray to an Imaginary Fairy in the Sky, I'd totally worship Amaterasu, because she's a hot Japanese Babe.   And she's not a huge, sexually hung up dick like Yahweh is.


----------



## JoeB131

james bond said:


> You grew up with Catholicism and it veered away from the original Christianity Jesus and the apostles taught. I grew up with Catholicism, too, and figured out it wasn't true but that wasn't until I discovered the original Christianity in 2012.



Okay, buddy, this is where you are a little confused. Catholicism was the original Christianity.   All the Protestant movements that followed were just their own ideas, usually over their own little hangups.  If Henry VIII wasn't trying to dump his first wife, we'd have no Protestantism today. 




*Chick Magnet - 1538!!!!  *



james bond said:


> Catholicism had added much different things to it. I figured it was designed by the other religious figure.



Actually, Catholicism, for all it's fault, was no more or less guilty than any other religion, trying to adapt bronze age superstitions to a modern day.  You can tell Catholicism is a Product of the Dark Ages, you can tell that Mormonism is a product of the 19th century.  All religions are period pieces.  



james bond said:


> One of the problems is if you try to figure out these things yourself is that what you hear is from radio waves. He is the prince of the power of the air so can easily dissuade you away from Jesus and true Christianity. I found true Christianity from participating and discussion with others. Sure, I have my own thoughts on it, but it's mostly from what the religion teaches.



Sigh. The Devil Made me Do It.  





Okay, guy, going back to my original story, about how Sister Mary Butch thought it was okay that God drowned every baby in the world and it was okay...  I've talked to a lot of Christians from all different stripes, and not a one of them has come up with an answer of how God could drown babies and still be considered "Good" that hasn't come off as retarded.  yet the old testament is filled with God killing babies...  or ordering babies to be killed.  

Frankly, your view of the Devil being the "Prince of the Air" or "The Prince of this World" is really not a Christian idea at all.  It has more to do with Gnosticism and had it's ultimate incarnation in Catharism (The Albigensian Heresy).  When the Crusaders asked the Popes envoy how to tell a good Christian from a Cathar, his response was "Kill them all, for God will know his own!"  (Or, "Kill them all and let God sort them out.")


----------



## GLASNOST

james bond said:


> GLASNOST said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> You believe in a stupid religion.  Get real.
> 
> 
> 
> You believe in a stupid religion. Get real.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you are atheist, then you believe in a stupid religion.  Its science assumes there is no God or gods and only the natural.  At least, you don't say much so people won't know how stupid you are .
Click to expand...

You believe in a stupid religion. Get real.


----------



## GLASNOST

ChemEngineer said:


> ..... I don't see a dime's difference between smug atheists and smug agnostics ...



That's exactly what I am saying - I am speaking to a person who doesn't understand shyt.



GLASNOST said:


> You want "*all *the evidence for my belief"? What sort of evidence are you looking for to demonstrate that I am an Agnostic?





ChemEngineer said:


> I asked for all your evidence. You provided zero.  Then you proceeded to judge my health  on the basis of your failure to answer a simple question.


LOL. That is the funniest thing I've heard all week. You want evidence of my claim to be an Agnostic and you want proof that legitimizes the Agnostic approach to God. In essence, you want me to provide evidence that God "might/or might not" exist. And then you don't understand why I question your health?

You really take the cake.  I mean, seriously! 

*I hope* *JoeB131 is reading this!*


----------



## james bond

ReinyDays said:


> Belief isn't religion



When it has to do with God, then atheism is a religion.  I consider agnostics the same as they don't believe in God, but do not accept him.  They want something external to them to show them or prove it to them.  The proof comes to both groups after their deaths.  Of course, nothing is good enough for both groups before death.  Probably it's due to the Antichrist, but I can't prove that either.  However, Scripture tells us about them.

Atheists
"And have mercy on those who doubt;" Jude 1:22

"To the choirmaster. Of David. The fool says in his heart, “There is no God.” They are corrupt, they do abominable deeds, there is none who does good." Psalm 14:1

"They are darkened in their understanding, alienated from the life of God because of the ignorance that is in them, due to their hardness of heart. They have become callous and have given themselves up to sensuality, greedy to practice every kind of impurity." Ephesians 4:18-19

Agnostics
"And Elihu continued, and said: “Bear with me a little, and I will show you, for I have yet something to say on God's behalf. I will get my knowledge from afar and ascribe righteousness to my Maker. For truly my words are not false; one who is perfect in knowledge is with you. “Behold, God is mighty, and does not despise any; he is mighty in strength of understanding." Job 36:1-37:24.

"And there is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved." Acts 4:12

“Because of the multitude of oppressions people cry out; they call for help because of the arm of the mighty. But none says, ‘Where is God my Maker, who gives songs in the night, who teaches us more than the beasts of the earth and makes us wiser than the birds of the heavens?’ There they cry out, but he does not answer, because of the pride of evil men. Surely God does not hear an empty cry, nor does the Almighty regard it. ..." Job 35:9-14

"And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather fear him who can destroy both soul and body in hell." Matthew 10:28


----------



## james bond

GLASNOST said:


> You really take the cake. I mean, seriously!



Maybe it's from my reading the Book of Daniel, but here's the weird thing I _see_ about you.

Do you believe any of King Nebuchadnezzar whom Daniel was made high apprentice to?  Do you believe the king was influenced by his top people who wanted just Chaldeans in positions of power?  They convinced the king to throw Daniel in a den of lions, but he survived.  Thus, the king tossed those advisors into the den of lions and they were promptly eaten.







What about what happened to Nebuchadnezzar in his seven year madness?  He ended up eating grass.  We have history as another king during that time fell to madness.  Thus, the secular historians have found true history about Nebuchadnezzar and his power, but claim his demise were literature based on another king (King Nabodinus).  I'm not sure what the Biblical scholars say.


----------



## GLASNOST

james bond said:


> Maybe it's from my reading the Book of Daniel, but here's the weird thing
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What about what happened to Nebuchadnezzar in his seven year madness?  He ended up eating grass.  ......


A strange and primitive story that has nothing to do with Agnosticism.  



james bond said:


> I'm not sure what the Biblical scholars say.


Nor am I. But learned secular scholars, philosophers, and psychologists say, *"Never believe superstitious fairy tales about nude vegetarians". *


----------



## Grumblenuts

Slyhunter said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GLASNOST said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jackflash said:
> 
> 
> 
> Religion = belief. Belief = acceptance. Acceptance = evolution. Evolution = acceptance. Acceptance = belief. Belief = religion.
> 
> There are no atheists as you can see *EVERYONE has a religion ONE WAY OR THE OTHER.* I believe it was Dr. Stephen Hawking that said "Sometimes one has to use reverse engineering to verify the answer".
> 
> 
> 
> I disagree. You say "Belief = religion". OK, but .....
> 
> A religious person *believes* in God (for example). *"Belief = religion"*
> An Atheist *believes* there is no God.* "Belief = religion"*
> An agnostic *doesn't believe* in anything. *No belief, no religion.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sigh.
> 
> Per Google:
> atheist - "a person who disbelieves *or lacks belief* in the existence of God or gods."
> agnostic -  "a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; *a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief* in God."
> 
> Per logic:
> An agnostic is simply an atheist lacking the balls to admit they're an atheist.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> An Agnostic is open to the possibility of Gods existence.
Click to expand...

Indeed, lacking belief means open to possibilities. Thus agnostic. Only agnostics, like you it seems, who refuse to admit they're really just atheists are either too chicken or too stupid to simply add that they require compelling, scientific evidence before actually buying into such silliness.


----------



## james bond

GLASNOST said:


> psychologists say, *"Never believe superstitious fairy tales about nude vegetarians".*



Hm... the Bible scholars mention a British writer reported a British museum had a case of boantrophy.







						A  King Eats Grass: Prophecies in Daniel Chapter Four by John M. Oakes – Evidence for Christianity
					






					evidenceforchristianity.org
				




ETA:  "God caused this mighty ruler to go insane for seven seasons to teach him a lesson that God reigns supreme.

- Actual Babylonian records from Nebuchadnezzar himself also record the seven season period of his insanity:

_“For four years my kingdom gave me no joy. During this time, not one building of any importance did I issue to be built. And in Babylon itself, no building was erected to pay tribute to my name or to give me glory. I did not sing praises to Merodach, my god, nor did I provide his sacrificial table with offerings, nor did I clean any of the waterways.”_

- In Babylon only two seasons were counted, Summer and Winter. Thus 7 seasons equals 3 1/2 years. And Nebuchadnezzar stated he did not delight in his kingdom for 4 years."






						Israel restored after the Babylonian captivity
					

Indepth study in the Biblical Archeology of Israel following the restoration from the Babylonian captivity.



					truthnet.org


----------



## GLASNOST

james bond said:


> GLASNOST said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hm... the Bible scholars mention a British writer reported a British museum had a case of boantrophy.
> 
> 
> 
> Hm ... and then there is the case of a fellow … oh, in respect of his wish to remain anonymous …  let us just call him Bames Jond who’s boanthropically transformed himself into a sheep.
Click to expand...


----------



## Grumblenuts

Again, it can easily be seen from the given definition:

_agnostic _- "a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; *a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief* in God."
that agnostics are self-contradictory. Stating that a thing can't be known _*is*_ making a positive knowledge claim. One stupidly rooted in "belief" or "faith" to boot. Like atheists, every self-identifying agnostic I've met IRL claimed to know nothing with certainty.. including "that* nothing can be known* of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena." Notice also though how a singular "God" is presumed in that definition. Gnosticism has always just been "eclectic" masturbation at best to begin with. _"Oh, you couldn't possibly understand, silly. It would take you literally decades of study!_

We know lots of stuff now that biblical authors had no clue about in their time. Dinosaurs, for example. Imagine saying *dinosaurs can't  be known* today and expecting to be taken seriously.


----------



## JoeB131

james bond said:


> When it has to do with God, then atheism is a religion. I consider agnostics the same as they don't believe in God, but do not accept him. They want something external to them to show them or prove it to them. The proof comes to both groups after their deaths. Of course, nothing is good enough for both groups before death. Probably it's due to the Antichrist, but I can't prove that either. However, Scripture tells us about them.



Buddy, here's the thing, if not believing in a specific God or Goddess is a religion, than you have a whole bunch of religions. 

You don't believe in Zeus, Odin, Quetzalcoatl, Amaterasu, Allah, Krishna, Lao Tsu, etc.  So by your own standards, you have a dozen religions or more.  



james bond said:


> Do you believe any of King Nebuchadnezzar whom Daniel was made high apprentice to? Do you believe the king was influenced by his top people who wanted just Chaldeans in positions of power? They convinced the king to throw Daniel in a den of lions, but he survived. Thus, the king tossed those advisors into the den of lions and they were promptly eaten.



Okay, do you actually read your Book of Fairy Tales?  

First, the guys who accused Daniel didn't want positions of power.   The King had put out a decree not to pray to Yahweh, Daniel broke it, and that's why he got thrown to the lions.  When the lions didn't eat Daniel, the King did this. 


6:23 Then was the king exceedingly glad for him, and commanded that they should take Daniel up out of the den. So Daniel was taken up out of the den, and no manner of hurt was found upon him, because he believed in his God.
This made the king happy.
And he commanded that Daniel be brought up from the den.
He was unhurt, because he believed in God.
24 And the king commanded, and *they brought those men which had accused Daniel, and they cast them into the den of lions, them, their children, and their wives; and the lions had the mastery of them, and brake all their bones in pieces* or ever they came at the bottom of the den.

Man, that's fucked up.  The king puts out a law.  These citizens report someone who broke the law.  When that person isn't eaten, the King's response to throw not only those who were good citizens to the lions, but their wives and children as well.   

That's kind of messed up, but frankly, it's typical for the bible. 

What I would love is to make a Bible Movie that ACCURATELY recreates the stories of the bible.  Elijah and the Bears... Jephthah's Daughter... the burning of Aaron's sons...  and every other fucked up story that shows the Bible God to be kind of a sociopath.


----------



## GLASNOST

Grumblenuts said:


> Again, it can easily be seen from the given definition:
> _agnostic    _-    "a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of    the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material    phenomena;



Incorrect.




Grumblenuts said:


> * a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief *in God."



Correct.



Grumblenuts said:


> … that agnostics are self-contradictory. Stating that a thing can't be known _*is *_making a positive knowledge claim. One stupidly rooted in "belief" or "faith" to boot.



This would be a hoot if it were not so sad that so many of my fellow homo sapiens can be so ignorant by way of their own choice, ie. voluntary. 

Pay attention now. Agnostics *DO NOT* state that a thing (this thing on the board) “can’t be known” and the reason for this is precisely the one you've given. So ..... you are smart enough to see the contradiction in terms but have none-the-less ignored it in your final analysis. Where do you get such idiotic notions? Is this because you have quoted a faulty definition in your first paragraph or did you make it up on your own? If your first quote is verbatim then I suggest you ask for a refund on your literary investment.


----------



## GLASNOST

JoeB131 said:


> Buddy, here's the thing, if not believing in a specific God or Goddess is a religion, than you have a whole bunch of religions.


Pure logic



JoeB131 said:


> You don't believe in Zeus, Odin, Quetzalcoatl, Amaterasu, Allah, Krishna, Lao Tsu, etc.  So by your own standards, you have a dozen religions or more.


An excellent observation.



JoeB131 said:


> Okay, do you actually read your Book of Fairy Tales?


A fair question.



JoeB131 said:


> What I would love is to make a Bible Movie that ACCURATELY recreates the stories of the bible.  ....


It's already been done - the highlights at least. Perhaps you could co-sponsor Part Two of this fascinating story


----------



## Grumblenuts

GLASNOST said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, it can easily be seen from the given definition:
> _agnostic    _-    "a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of    the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material    phenomena;
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Incorrect.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> * a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief *in God."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Correct.
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> … that agnostics are self-contradictory. Stating that a thing can't be known _*is *_making a positive knowledge claim. One stupidly rooted in "belief" or "faith" to boot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This would be a hoot if it were not so sad that so many of my fellow homo sapiens can be so ignorant by way of their own choice, ie. voluntary.
> 
> Pay attention now. Agnostics *DO NOT* state that a thing (this thing on the board) “can’t be known” and the reason for this is precisely the one you've given. So ..... you are smart enough to see the contradiction in terms but have none-the-less ignored it in your final analysis. Where do you get such idiotic notions? Is this because you have quoted a faulty definition in your first paragraph or did you make it up on your own? If your first quote is verbatim then I suggest you ask for a refund on your literary investment.
Click to expand...

Okay, so you're cognitively dissonant and proudly so. Yes, both things YOU just labeled "Incorrect" and "Correct" at the same time came directly from the same definition and source. What source? As I already said, Google. I'll track it down further in a minute. Thing is, at least I have a source. You evidently pluck shit straight from your ass, call it good, and expect to be taken seriously.

Google:
agnostic
"Definitions from Oxford Languages"


> Google’s English dictionary is provided by Oxford Languages.
> 
> Oxford Languages is the world’s leading dictionary publisher, with over 150 years of experience creating and delivering authoritative dictionaries globally in more than 50 languages.
> 
> Oxford’s English dictionaries are widely regarded as the world’s most authoritative sources on current English.


----------



## james bond

GLASNOST said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GLASNOST said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hm... the Bible scholars mention a British writer reported a British museum had a case of boantrophy.
> 
> 
> 
> Hm ... and then there is the case of a fellow … oh, in respect of his wish to remain anonymous …  let us just call him Bames Jond who’s boanthropically transformed himself into a sheep.
> 
> View attachment 426060
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Yours is a stupid religion because of no evidence for abiogenesis, multiverses, what was there before the big bang, aliens, social Darwinism, eugenics, and more.  Think about how Hitler tried genocide of Jews just to contradict and destroy the Bible (God's word).  It couldn't be all coincidence.  We got Jesus Christ and the Anti-Christ.  It could be matter and anti-matter.

OTOH, I learned something more about King Nebchadnezzar and his mental illness.  It gives new meaning to "your mother is a cow."






						Nebuchadnezzar and boanthropy - The Pharmaceutical Journal
					

The most famous sufferer of this condition was King Nebuchadnezzar, who in the Book of Daniel “was driven from men and did eat grass as oxen”. Nebuchadnezzar was the king of the Neo-Babylonian Empire from 605BC to 562BC. According to the Bible, he conquered Judah and Jerusalem and sent the Jews...




					www.pharmaceutical-journal.com


----------



## GLASNOST

Grumblenuts said:


> GLASNOST said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, it can easily be seen from the given definition:
> _agnostic    _-    "a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of    the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material    phenomena;
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Incorrect.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> * a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief *in God."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Correct.
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> … that agnostics are self-contradictory. Stating that a thing can't be known _*is *_making a positive knowledge claim. One stupidly rooted in "belief" or "faith" to boot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This would be a hoot if it were not so sad that so many of my fellow homo sapiens can be so ignorant by way of their own choice, ie. voluntary.
> 
> Pay attention now. Agnostics *DO NOT* state that a thing (this thing on the board) “can’t be known” and the reason for this is precisely the one you've given. So ..... you are smart enough to see the contradiction in terms but have none-the-less ignored it in your final analysis. Where do you get such idiotic notions? Is this because you have quoted a faulty definition in your first paragraph or did you make it up on your own? If your first quote is verbatim then I suggest you ask for a refund on your literary investment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Okay, so you're cognitively dissonant and proudly so. Yes, both things YOU just labeled "Incorrect" and "Correct" at the same time came directly from the same definition and source. What source? As I already said, Google. I'll track it down further in a minute. Thing is, at least I have a source. You evidently pluck shit straight from your ass, call it good, and expect to be taken seriously.
> 
> Google:
> agnostic
> "Definitions from Oxford Languages"
> 
> 
> 
> Google’s English dictionary is provided by Oxford Languages.
> 
> Oxford Languages is the world’s leading dictionary publisher, with over 150 years of experience creating and delivering authoritative dictionaries globally in more than 50 languages.
> 
> Oxford’s English dictionaries are widely regarded as the world’s most authoritative sources on current English.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Make like a man instead of an ass. This is how it's going to go down. You link me your source that states;


*agnostic - "a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God* or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God."
and if it is feasibly possible I will contact them and point out their mistake. Does that sound fair to you? The correct statement ought to read "information* not available**"* (or something similar). But defining an agnostic as someone who claims the existence of God *CANNOT BE KNOWN* is ridiculous unless it is out of context such as *cannot be known until more information is found/discovered.*

Link me the exact quote.


----------



## GLASNOST

james bond said:


> Yours is a stupid religion because of no evidence for abiogenesis, multiverses, what was there before the big bang, aliens, social Darwinism, eugenics, and more. ......


First of all, I don't have a religion so you are spinning your wheels in a vacuum. But yours is a stupid religion because of no evidence for the existence of any god at all.


----------



## Grumblenuts

GLASNOST said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GLASNOST said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, it can easily be seen from the given definition:
> _agnostic    _-    "a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of    the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material    phenomena;
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Incorrect.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> * a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief *in God."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Correct.
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> … that agnostics are self-contradictory. Stating that a thing can't be known _*is *_making a positive knowledge claim. One stupidly rooted in "belief" or "faith" to boot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This would be a hoot if it were not so sad that so many of my fellow homo sapiens can be so ignorant by way of their own choice, ie. voluntary.
> 
> Pay attention now. Agnostics *DO NOT* state that a thing (this thing on the board) “can’t be known” and the reason for this is precisely the one you've given. So ..... you are smart enough to see the contradiction in terms but have none-the-less ignored it in your final analysis. Where do you get such idiotic notions? Is this because you have quoted a faulty definition in your first paragraph or did you make it up on your own? If your first quote is verbatim then I suggest you ask for a refund on your literary investment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Okay, so you're cognitively dissonant and proudly so. Yes, both things YOU just labeled "Incorrect" and "Correct" at the same time came directly from the same definition and source. What source? As I already said, Google. I'll track it down further in a minute. Thing is, at least I have a source. You evidently pluck shit straight from your ass, call it good, and expect to be taken seriously.
> 
> Google:
> agnostic
> "Definitions from Oxford Languages"
> 
> 
> 
> Google’s English dictionary is provided by Oxford Languages.
> 
> Oxford Languages is the world’s leading dictionary publisher, with over 150 years of experience creating and delivering authoritative dictionaries globally in more than 50 languages.
> 
> Oxford’s English dictionaries are widely regarded as the world’s most authoritative sources on current English.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Make like a man instead of an ass. This is how it's going to go down. You link me your source that states;
> 
> 
> *agnostic - "a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God* or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God."
> and if it is feasibly possible I will contact them and point out their mistake. Does that sound fair to you? The correct statement ought to read "information not available" (or something similar). But defining an agnostic as someone who claims the existence of God *CANNOT BE KNOWN* is ridiculous unless it is out of context such as *cannot be known until more information is found/discovered.*
> 
> Link me the exact quote.
Click to expand...

Already done, sparky. You're wrong. Now take a deep breath and get over it.


----------



## Grumblenuts

> ag·nos·tic
> /aɡˈnästik/
> 
> noun
> a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God.


----------



## GLASNOST

Grumblenuts said:


> GLASNOST said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GLASNOST said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, it can easily be seen from the given definition:
> _agnostic    _-    "a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of    the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material    phenomena;
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Incorrect.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> * a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief *in God."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Correct.
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> … that agnostics are self-contradictory. Stating that a thing can't be known _*is *_making a positive knowledge claim. One stupidly rooted in "belief" or "faith" to boot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This would be a hoot if it were not so sad that so many of my fellow homo sapiens can be so ignorant by way of their own choice, ie. voluntary.
> 
> Pay attention now. Agnostics *DO NOT* state that a thing (this thing on the board) “can’t be known” and the reason for this is precisely the one you've given. So ..... you are smart enough to see the contradiction in terms but have none-the-less ignored it in your final analysis. Where do you get such idiotic notions? Is this because you have quoted a faulty definition in your first paragraph or did you make it up on your own? If your first quote is verbatim then I suggest you ask for a refund on your literary investment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Okay, so you're cognitively dissonant and proudly so. Yes, both things YOU just labeled "Incorrect" and "Correct" at the same time came directly from the same definition and source. What source? As I already said, Google. I'll track it down further in a minute. Thing is, at least I have a source. You evidently pluck shit straight from your ass, call it good, and expect to be taken seriously.
> 
> Google:
> agnostic
> "Definitions from Oxford Languages"
> 
> 
> 
> Google’s English dictionary is provided by Oxford Languages.
> 
> Oxford Languages is the world’s leading dictionary publisher, with over 150 years of experience creating and delivering authoritative dictionaries globally in more than 50 languages.
> 
> Oxford’s English dictionaries are widely regarded as the world’s most authoritative sources on current English.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Make like a man instead of an ass. This is how it's going to go down. You link me your source that states;
> 
> 
> *agnostic - "a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God* or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God."
> and if it is feasibly possible I will contact them and point out their mistake. Does that sound fair to you? The correct statement ought to read "information not available" (or something similar). But defining an agnostic as someone who claims the existence of God *CANNOT BE KNOWN* is ridiculous unless it is out of context such as *cannot be known until more information is found/discovered.*
> 
> Link me the exact quote.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Already done, sparky. You're wrong. Now take a deep breath and get over it.
Click to expand...

Be honest with yourself. You pointed out the discrepancy in the post where you provided the quote. You knew even then that something was wrong. But rather than face the contradiction head-on and admit there is a problem, you've decided to pin your hopes on something that you don't even believe because you think it will discredit something you don't agree with. I'm still waiting for you to link the exact quote.


----------



## GLASNOST

Grumblenuts said:


> ag·nos·tic
> /aɡˈnästik/
> 
> noun
> a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God.
Click to expand...

Good. I will contact them.


----------



## GLASNOST

GLASNOST said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ag·nos·tic
> /aɡˈnästik/
> 
> noun
> a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Good. I will contact them.
Click to expand...

I have sent my complaint but as the form requires no ID I don't know how I will find out their response other than periodically checking their definition for any change.


----------



## james bond

JoeB131 said:


> Man, that's fucked up. The king puts out a law. These citizens report someone who broke the law. When that person isn't eaten, the King's response to throw not only those who were good citizens to the lions, but their wives and children as well.
> 
> That's kind of messed up, but frankly, it's typical for the bible.



The lesson is just like Daniel’s accusers, it will end badly for those who accuse and persecute Christians today.

ETA:  I noticed you missed a key part in that accusers came up with their plot to get rid of Daniel by having King Darius make a decree and put it in writing.  It was only afterward that the King realized what had happened.  Daniel and the den of lions is one of the more beloved stories of the Bible.


----------



## Grumblenuts

GLASNOST said:


> GLASNOST said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ag·nos·tic
> /aɡˈnästik/
> 
> noun
> a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Good. I will contact them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have sent my complaint but as the form requires no ID I don't know how I will find out their response other than periodically checking their definition for any change.
Click to expand...

Provide a stool sample as well?


----------



## ChemEngineer

james bond said:


> Daniel and the den of lions is one of the more beloved stories of the Bible.



I'm very partial to Joseph confronting his brothers who sold him into slavery and telling them, "Go home and bring Father back.  Leave everything behind. I've got you covered.  Know what I mean?"
This was after he had his staff plant his special chalice in their luggage on their first trip home, and had them captured and brought before him as thieves.  He worked them brilliantly.


----------



## GLASNOST

Grumblenuts said:


> GLASNOST said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GLASNOST said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ag·nos·tic
> /aɡˈnästik/
> 
> noun
> a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Good. I will contact them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have sent my complaint but as the form requires no ID I don't know how I will find out their response other than periodically checking their definition for any change.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Provide a stool sample as well?
Click to expand...

I don't have any. I use chairs.


----------



## Damaged Eagle

God is capable of many wonderous things.

*****SMILE*****


----------



## james bond

GLASNOST said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yours is a stupid religion because of no evidence for abiogenesis, multiverses, what was there before the big bang, aliens, social Darwinism, eugenics, and more. ......
> 
> 
> 
> First of all, I don't have a religion so you are spinning your wheels in a vacuum. But yours is a stupid religion because of no evidence for the existence of any god at all.
Click to expand...


GLASNOST you are in denial.  You can't believe there is God of Christianity because of your faith in the atheism/agnosticism religion.  All of us know you do.

Anyway, I was discussing NBA basketball this evening and how James Harden is hanging around bars in Las Vegas and strip clubs in Atlanta without a mask even with the rise of Covid-19 again.  More importantly, he's not reporting to practice, i.e. not showing up for work.  This guy gets paid $40 M+ per year and passed up an extension of 2 yrs/$50 M+ per year or $103 M.  He wants to get traded to another team, but is hurting his trade value with his current antics.

One person posted a cartoon.  They posted a meme and a cartoon.  The second one fits the atheists/agnostics, too.  I think the fire represents the pandemic.


----------



## GLASNOST

james bond said:


> you are in denial. You can't believe there is God of Christianity ….



Denial is in refusing to accept facts. There are no facts supporting the existence of a Supreme Being. So, it is you who is in denial. 



james bond said:


> … because of your faith in the atheism/agnosticism religion.



Agnosticism is not a faith. It is the absence of faith in superstition and hocus-pocus. When an agnostic watches a magic show he knows there is no magic involved. You do not understand that. You believe in magic. Having faith in religion and atheism is a necessity for those with less character than an agnostic.


----------



## JoeB131

GLASNOST said:


> It's already been done - the highlights at least. Perhaps you could co-sponsor Part Two of this fascinating story



Not what I was going for.  I want to actually take the bible stories themselves, and portray them EXACTLY the way they are written, not either ignoring them or "Disneyfying" them to make them more palatable. 

For instance, the story of Jephthah, who made a foolish oath to God so that he could slaughter Ammonite women and children (shown in graphic detail in a battle scene) promised he would make a burnt offering of the first living thing he encountered when he returned home.  Well, as luck would have it, the first thing he encountered was his virgin daughter.  Welp, and Oath is an Oath, so his daughter got 30 days to bewail her virginity, before she was sacrificed and burned to please Yahweh...  (Judges 11) 

Or the story of Elisha and the Bears (2 Kings 2). Some children make fun of the Bald Prophet Elijah, and he cursed them, when two bears emerge from the woods and start killing them.  Now, this would be a tough one, do you get a real bear, or do you do a CGI Bear?  Probably for safety reasons, you'd have to go with a CGI Bear, but you don't want to make it look too fake.


----------



## Grumblenuts

GLASNOST said:


> Agnosticism is not a faith. It is the absence of faith in superstition and hocus-pocus.


You've still got it ass-backwards. A hard core agnostic literally _*believes*_ no one can ever "know"  for sure: A(not) Gnostic(knowing).  An assertive *disbelief *in anyone ever being capable of knowing one way or another. Scientifically, logically, whatever.


> When an agnostic watches a magic show he knows there is no magic involved.


And there you go, asserting that those professing not to know.. actually know a thing or two.. presumably as opposed to those who do claim to know things.. Weirdo!


> Having faith in religion and atheism is a necessity for those with less character than an agnostic.


At its most basic, it's *atheists* who *lack belief* by definition. A(=not) Theist(=believing).. _nonbelief_ or un_belief,_ not active _disbelief_. Don't get me wrong. I support agnostics in general. Perhaps go here for an in depth, highfalutin, more or less satisfying analysis.


----------



## JoeB131

james bond said:


> The lesson is just like Daniel’s accusers, it will end badly for those who accuse and persecute Christians today.
> 
> ETA: I noticed you missed a key part in that accusers came up with their plot to get rid of Daniel by having King Darius make a decree and put it in writing. It was only afterward that the King realized what had happened. Daniel and the den of lions is one of the more beloved stories of the Bible.



Yeah, it's one of those beloved stories because it gets "Disneyfied".   Kind of like if they did a faithful version of The Hunchback of Notre Dame, it would have ended with Esmerelda being hanged and the Hunchback starving to death sleeping on her grave.   That would have been a downer.  Or Pocahontas being taken as a sex slave and dying of smallpox at 21.  Total downer, man, we got to DISNEY those stories. 

You religious nuts do the same thing.  Darius threw innocent women and children to those lions (Seriously, how many lions did he have? What was he feeding them the rest of the time?) for reporting a law HE SIGNED!!!  Seems to me Darius was more guilty there of stuff than the son of some official who was overly dedicated to their religion. 

And that's the problem. The bible is filled with fucked up stories like that. The ones that make Yahweh look like a Batman Villain.


----------



## Turtlesoup

JimBowie1958 said:


> GLASNOST said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GLASNOST said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why are people so stupid? Atheism has nothing to do with science. Read my lips .... Science does not disprove the existence of God but *Science most definitely DISPROVES THE BIBLE & the KORAN. *Is that really so difficult to understand?
> 
> 
> 
> Science cannot disprove the Bible or Koran, dude, as Science cannot 'disprove' literary works of any kind that contain allegory, metaphor and prophetic text..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, you are saying that nothing found in the bible has been disproved. Gee whilikers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not by science.
> 
> None of us were present  when these things happened and they involved things that go beyond the natural law.
> 
> Why dont we take a specific case?
> Disprove the Song of Solomon, OK? Then I'll rebut your arguments.
Click to expand...

World Wide Flood never happened....according to science
Story of Noah all a lie --------story stolen from other cultures and rewritten


----------



## Grumblenuts

I laugh with you, not at you, Joe.


----------



## james bond

JoeB131 said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> The lesson is just like Daniel’s accusers, it will end badly for those who accuse and persecute Christians today.
> 
> ETA: I noticed you missed a key part in that accusers came up with their plot to get rid of Daniel by having King Darius make a decree and put it in writing. It was only afterward that the King realized what had happened. Daniel and the den of lions is one of the more beloved stories of the Bible.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, it's one of those beloved stories because it gets "Disneyfied".   Kind of like if they did a faithful version of The Hunchback of Notre Dame, it would have ended with Esmerelda being hanged and the Hunchback starving to death sleeping on her grave.   That would have been a downer.  Or Pocahontas being taken as a sex slave and dying of smallpox at 21.  Total downer, man, we got to DISNEY those stories.
> 
> You religious nuts do the same thing.  Darius threw innocent women and children to those lions (Seriously, how many lions did he have? What was he feeding them the rest of the time?) for reporting a law HE SIGNED!!!  Seems to me Darius was more guilty there of stuff than the son of some official who was overly dedicated to their religion.
> 
> And that's the problem. The bible is filled with fucked up stories like that. The ones that make Yahweh look like a Batman Villain.
Click to expand...


No, it isn't.  What atheists are doing is choosing not God or being without God.  You didn't realize King Nebuchadnezzar was a real person and we see what happened to him.  He had tremendous amount of power (maybe the most) and riches in the world at his disposal.  You couldn't see this.  

Thus, I found someone much less, but still a sports celebrity, multi-millionaire, and super athlete.  He may the best at his work in terms of offense.  Yet, look at what he's choosing and doing.  He's ignoring the dangers of our pandemic, upsetting his team to the point they have no idea what he's going to do next and whether he'll report to work (after they bent over backward to try and satisfy his demands).  So, what happened to him.  He started listening to the other guy.  Even his mother had to chime in and we can see that she didn't raise her boy right and let him do what he wants, i.e. spoiled him.


----------



## james bond

GLASNOST said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> you are in denial. You can't believe there is God of Christianity ….
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Denial is in refusing to accept facts. There are no facts supporting the existence of a Supreme Being. So, it is you who is in denial.
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> … because of your faith in the atheism/agnosticism religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Agnosticism is not a faith. It is the absence of faith in superstition and hocus-pocus. When an agnostic watches a magic show he knows there is no magic involved. You do not understand that. You believe in magic. Having faith in religion and atheism is a necessity for those with less character than an agnostic.
Click to expand...


The facts are the universe, Earth, and everything in it are here.  That is evidence for God.  You're just too much an idiot to realize it.  You've been too stupefied by the other guy to realize it.  Good bye.


----------



## GLASNOST

JoeB131 said:


> Not what I was going for.


I know.



JoeB131 said:


> I want to actually take the bible stories themselves, and portray them EXACTLY the way they are written, not either ignoring them or "Disneyfying" them to make them more palatable.
> 
> For instance, the story of Jephthah, who made a foolish oath to God so that he could slaughter Ammonite women and children (shown in graphic detail in a battle scene) promised he would make a burnt offering of the first living thing he encountered when he returned home.  Well, as luck would have it, the first thing he encountered was his virgin daughter.  Welp, and Oath is an Oath, so his daughter got 30 days to bewail her virginity, before she was sacrificed and burned to please Yahweh...  (Judges 11)
> 
> Or the story of Elisha and the Bears (2 Kings 2). Some children make fun of the Bald Prophet Elijah, and he cursed them, when two bears emerge from the woods and start killing them.  Now, this would be a tough one, do you get a real bear, or do you do a CGI Bear?  Probably for safety reasons, you'd have to go with a CGI Bear, but you don't want to make it look too fake.


Good luck!


----------



## james bond

Here is why there is no beginning of life for people like JoeB131 .  He believes in no God, creation, nor creation science that only life can create life.  He believes in a fairy tale of abiogenesis or life from no life..


----------



## GLASNOST

Grumblenuts said:


> GLASNOST said:
> 
> 
> 
> Agnosticism is not a faith. It is the absence of faith in superstition and hocus-pocus.
> 
> 
> 
> You've still got it ass-backwards. A hard core agnostic literally _*believes*_ no one can ever "know"  for sure:
Click to expand...

I'm *"a hardcore agnostic" *and I never said it nor do I believe _*"no one can ever know for sure".*_  It is completely contrary to agnosticism and so your agenda is screwed. What is funny ("pathetic" is a much better word for it) is that you spotted the discrepancy from the very beginning but then you must have realized that it doesn't fit your line of criticism against agnosticism so you're running with a deflated football. If you can get away with sneaking it past the goalposts of sleepy, unobservant on-lookers more power to you but if you think you're going to kick it through the uprights for the extra point then you're going to be in for an embarrassing finish and you'll realize that the jig is up.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Blackrook said:


> If you can't prove it then it's really a form of lying to teach in the schools and convince innocent little children it's true.


But enough about religion...this is the science section...


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Damaged Eagle said:


> View attachment 426419
> 
> God is capable of many wonderous things.
> 
> *****SMILE*****


How brave of you to say. Are clouds also capable of rain?


----------



## GLASNOST

james bond said:


> The facts are the universe, Earth, and everything in it are here.  That is evidence for God.  You're just too much an idiot to realize it.  You've been too stupefied by the other guy to realize it.  Good bye.


 
The facts are the universe, Earth, and everything in it that are here including plastic, harnessed atoms, television, the internal combustion engine, pyrotechnics, silly-cone titties, Botox lips, Pirelli p-zero225/40R18 92Y XL tyres, the MiG-31, Jerry Lee Lewis’ cousin,  jazz music, Dolly Parton’s defiance of gravity, the Holocaust, and the priapistic Khoisan penis is evidence that god may not exist. You’re just too much of a self-inflicted ignoramus to realize it. Hello!


----------



## Damaged Eagle

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 426419
> 
> God is capable of many wonderous things.
> 
> *****SMILE*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How brave of you to say. Are clouds also capable of rain?
Click to expand...





Just as the ocean always meet the shore.

*****CHUCKLE*****


----------



## Grumblenuts

GLASNOST said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GLASNOST said:
> 
> 
> 
> Agnosticism is not a faith. It is the absence of faith in superstition and hocus-pocus.
> 
> 
> 
> You've still got it ass-backwards. A hard core agnostic literally _*believes*_ no one can ever "know"  for sure:
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm *"a hardcore agnostic" *and I never said it nor do I believe _*"no one can ever know for sure".*_  It is completely contrary to agnosticism and so your agenda is screwed.
Click to expand...

Yeah, yeah, you're a proudly meanspirited, self-centered, little legend in your own mind. A dime a dozen around here. Fuck everyone else. Fuck dictionaries. All that matters is what you've thought and personally experienced. Never listen. Demand quotes and sources (already provided), then provide absolutely none of your own. Well, good luck with all that, sparky. Meanwhile, grownups shall continue conversing intelligently about verifiable facts with genuine interest and humor.


----------



## GLASNOST

Grumblenuts said:


> Yeah, yeah, you're a proudly meanspirited, self-centered, little legend in your own mind. A dime a dozen around here. Fuck everyone else. Fuck dictionaries. All that matters is what you've thought and personally experienced. Never listen. Demand quotes and sources (already provided), then provide absolutely none of your own. Well, good luck with all that, sparky.


You poor baby. Shall I make you a cup of hot chocolate to make you feel better? 



Grumblenuts said:


> Meanwhile, grownups shall continue conversing intelligently about verifiable facts ....



Oh yeah ... verifiable facts. You've been faithfully providing _"verifiable facts"_ on a daily basis but it sounds like a broken record and it all comes down to  *"Don't dispute me! All the verifiable facts are in  the bible!" *


----------



## Grumblenuts

More it is then, son:


> Etymology[edit]
> Agnostic (from Ancient Greek ἀ- (a-) 'without', and γνῶσις (gnōsis) 'knowledge') was used by Thomas Henry Huxley in a speech at a meeting of the Metaphysical Society in 1869 to describe his philosophy, which rejects all claims of spiritual or mystical knowledge.[21][22]
> 
> Early Christian church leaders used the Greek word gnosis (knowledge) to describe "spiritual knowledge". Agnosticism is not to be confused with religious views opposing the ancient religious movement of Gnosticism in particular; Huxley used the term in a broader, more abstract sense.[23] Huxley identified agnosticism not as a creed but rather as a method of skeptical, evidence-based inquiry.[24]
> 
> In recent years, scientific literature dealing with neuroscience and psychology has used the word to mean "not knowable".[25] In technical and marketing literature, "agnostic" can also mean independence from some parameters—for example, "platform agnostic" (referring to cross-platform software)[26] or "hardware-agnostic".[27]


Go ahead. Deny it all some more..


----------



## GLASNOST

Grumblenuts said:


> More it is then, son:
> 
> 
> 
> Etymology[edit]
> Agnostic (from Ancient Greek ἀ- (a-) 'without', and γνῶσις (gnōsis) 'knowledge') was used by Thomas Henry Huxley in a speech at a meeting of the Metaphysical Society in 1869 to describe his philosophy, which rejects all claims of spiritual or mystical knowledge.[21][22]
> 
> Early Christian church leaders used the Greek word gnosis (knowledge) to describe "spiritual knowledge". Agnosticism is not to be confused with religious views opposing the ancient religious movement of Gnosticism in particular; Huxley used the term in a broader, more abstract sense.[23] Huxley identified agnosticism not as a creed but rather as a method of skeptical, evidence-based inquiry.[24]
> 
> In recent years, scientific literature dealing with neuroscience and psychology has used the word to mean "not knowable".[25] In technical and marketing literature, "agnostic" can also mean independence from some parameters—for example, "platform agnostic" (referring to cross-platform software)[26] or "hardware-agnostic".[27]
> 
> 
> 
> Go ahead. Deny it all some more..
Click to expand...

You're not listening. You think all four-legged animals are dogs so discussing birds would go way over your head ...


----------



## Grumblenuts

Bubbye!


----------



## GLASNOST

Grumblenuts said:


> Bubbye!


----------



## Thunderbird

GLASNOST said:


> Why are people so stupid? Atheism has nothing to do with science. Read my lips .... Science does not disprove the existence of God but *Science most definitely DISPROVES THE BIBLE & the KORAN. *Is that really so difficult to understand?


Science does not disprove the Bible.









						How was the Genesis Account of Creation Interpreted Before Darwin? - Common Question - BioLogos
					

Many assume Darwin’s theory shook the foundations of Christianity, but the 6-day interpretation of Genesis was not the only view held by Christians prior to modern science.




					biologos.org


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Thunderbird said:


> GLASNOST said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why are people so stupid? Atheism has nothing to do with science. Read my lips .... Science does not disprove the existence of God but *Science most definitely DISPROVES THE BIBLE & the KORAN. *Is that really so difficult to understand?
> 
> 
> 
> Science does not disprove the Bible.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How was the Genesis Account of Creation Interpreted Before Darwin? - Common Question - BioLogos
> 
> 
> Many assume Darwin’s theory shook the foundations of Christianity, but the 6-day interpretation of Genesis was not the only view held by Christians prior to modern science.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> biologos.org
Click to expand...

Parts of it, of course it does. The Adam and Eve myth has been ruled out, for example.


----------



## ChemEngineer

Thunderbird said:


> Science does not disprove the Bible.




*Science of the Bible*​

As a chemical engineer, I understand, and subscribe to the tenets of the scientific method. If anything has given me an appreciation for the Profound Fortuitous Interdependencies* which make life possible, it is the objectivity engendered by my scientific background, coupled with common sense so often lacking in many well educated people. How anti-intellectual it is of the godless Left to denigrate Christians, often maliciously so. Calling Christians “fundies” and “believers in a flat earth” seems to give many people the perverse notion that they are erudite, and can consign Christians to the backwaters of ignorance. Just as Jesus overturned the tables of the money-changers in His Temple, so too is it my intention to overturn the tables of the intolerant Left with these personally written observations correlating science with its Creator.


*Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.*

The Holy Bible was written more than 2000 years ago. In 1924, Edwin Hubble proved that the spiral nebula in the constellation Andromeda was a separate island universe, apart from the Milky Way. This extended the size and scale of our universe by many orders of magnitude. Then, after hearing Albert Einstein's theory of relativity, Georges Lemaître, an ordained Catholic priest, proposed the “primeval atom” in 1927 – in other words, the creation of the universe. This breathtaking advancement in scientific thinking came not from a pontificating atheist, claiming to have exclusive jurisdiction over truth and science, but rather from a devoted follower of the Creator of heaven and earth. Contrary to their pretensions, atheists do not possess the only key to discovery and knowledge.

In 1929, Fred Hubble discovered the Red Shift, eliminating any doubt that Lemaitre was right and Einstein wrong. Einstein had said to Lemaître , "your mathematics is correct but your physics is abominable." This phenomenon, Red Shift, shows that some galaxies are moving away from us at greater speeds than others, and that such velocities are proportional to their distance. This gave strong corroboration to the Big Bang theory of creation. The residual heat predicted in 1927 by Lemaître, and derisively dismissed by Albert Einstein, was later confirmed by Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson who in 1965 discovered the residual background radiation which is a remnant of the Big Bang. Penzias and Wilson of course received the Nobel Prize for their discovery, which was accidental. The penning of Genesis 1:1 was not.

Prior to Lemaître’s radical proposal, scientists believed that the universe was eternal, that it had always been as we see it today. An inherent aspect of the Steady State Universe is the assumption that matter is continuously being created, somewhere, somehow. This passed for science, until it was disproved in the 1965 Astrophysical Journal.

So we see Twentieth Century confirmation of the profoundly deep science originally expressed in the first sentence of the first paragraph of the first book of the Bible, and scientifically advanced centuries later by a Catholic priest (A “Fundie”), before anyone else.


*Genesis 2:7 And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

Genesis 3:19 In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.*

Modern chemistry could not have begun before 1802, when John Dalton formally provided experimental evidence that matter is composed of discrete atoms. Everything before this was mere speculation – guesswork. Nevertheless, it is clearly stated in Genesis that man is “formed of the dust of the ground”, which is to say, the same elements of carbon, oxygen, hydrogen, iron, nitrogen, etc, that we find in . . . dust of the ground, minerals.


*Genesis 2:19 And out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field, and every foul of the air;*

The same elements which form humans also form animals everywhere. However, there is no Biblical reference to “a living soul” with respect to animals. Nor do animals have the capacity to worship and appreciate the spirituality and hope that is one of the premier hallmarks of mankind, and our supreme bequest.


*Genesis 6:11 The earth also was corrupt before God, and the earth was filled with violence.*

One would think that as a result of the disciplines and analyses and benefits of human enlightenment, mankind should have been able to eliminate corruption and violence so prevalent thousands of years ago. Today, we have tools of production and health and social enlightenment unimaginable when the book of Genesis was written. But the earth today is still full of corruption and violence. Cornucopias of goods and services have not satisfied mankind’s lust for more, nor have psychologists and sociologists resolved the complex issues that lead people into destructive behavior. With burgeoning prison populations, and monstrous acts of evil on the increase worldwide, there seems little hope that corruption and violence will ever be eradicated.

*Genesis 7:19 And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered.*

Although the North American Continent was unknown when the Bible was written, paleontologists confirm that the interior of North America was once covered by shallow seas. Fossil evidence from distant parts of the globe that were unknown to inhabitants of ancient Israel lends scientific confirmation to the Noachian Flood described in the most ancient book of science known to man, the Holy Bible. I do not pretend to know the length of the six "days" of creation. However it is abundantly clear to me that the Elegance of Everything and the insuperable statistics of abiogenesis1 and the Anthropic Principle2 are eternally inexplicable by any exclusively naturalistic method. To those with eyes, God’s Hand is clearly visible everywhere one looks.

*Matthew 5:16 Let your light shine before men in such a way that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father who is in heaven. *

We scientists have found that doing a kindness produces the single most reliable momentary increase in well-being of any exercise we have tested. – *Flourish*, by Martin Seligman, psychologist

If you want to be happy, do good, be kind, give.


*Exodus 3:14 I am hath sent me unto you.....

John 9:58 Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.*

The naturalistic, if you will, “scientific” approach to explaining how man and energy and matter and space originated is to examine what is observable, and formulate hypotheses and theories based on observation and reason. There is no scientific explanation for the origin of matter and energy and information at the Moment of Creation, the Singularity, and obviously no experiment can examine, much less confirm any hypothesis of what first happened to lead to us and everything we see.

In contrast, God defies scientific explanation because He is outside its purview. If miracles were scientifically explicable, they would not be miracles. After all, God created the physical realm that is the subject of scientific inquiry and we are still desperately trying to understand that aspect of His handiwork. Had mere mortals written where God came from without divine inspiration, they surely could not have presented such an elegant explanation as “I am” – an explanation that suffices even two thousand years later. Where did God come from? "I am." The universe is not eternal, but God is.

I have only a vague notion of how my computer works as I type this on it. Although I don’t know how it works, I do know that it is real and that it operates in a marvelous, almost magical way. I don’t need to understand things to believe in and use them. And how much more marvelous is my brain and yours than these primitive computers, not one of which designed, much less built itself.

“Many people don’t realize that science basically involves assumptions and faith. Wonderful things in both science and religion come from our efforts based on observations, thoughtful assumptions, faith and logic. (With the findings of modern physics, it) seems extremely unlikely (that the existence of life and humanity are ) just accidental.” – Charles Townes, Nobel Laureate and Professor of Physics at UC Berkeley

Romans 1:19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them (people); for God hath shewed it unto them.

20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they (non-believers) are without excuse:

"Newton and his contemporaries believed that in doing science they were uncovering the divine plan for the universe in the form of its underlying mathematical order." – Paul Davies

Some of leading scientists whose work was motivated by their faith were: Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo, Brahe, Descartes, Boyle, Newton, Leibniz, Gassendi, Pascal, Mersenne, Cuvier, Harvey, Dalton, Faraday, Herschel, Joule, Lyell, Lavoisier, Priestley, Kelvin, Ohm, Ampere, Steno, Pasteur, Maxwell, Planck, Mendel.

*Job 26:7 He stretcheth out the north over the empty place, and hangeth the earth upon nothing.*

Has anyone the slightest doubt as to how “empty” the North Pole is? Nobody living in the Middle East could possibly have visited “the north” so as to confirm what was then being written. These immutable scientific truths – two here in a single sentence - were far too coincidental to be attributable to luck. No, they were divinely inspired, as were so many things in the Bible. The earth truly hangs “upon nothing”, as confirmed by countless photographs from satellites and space stations, not to mention men on the moon, and the north is indeed an “empty place” by any measure.

*Job 26:14 Lo, these are parts of his ways: but how little a portion is heard of him? but the thunder of his power who can understand?*

With all our wisdom, and all our science, and all our research, “who can understand” anything today. Ultimate scientific answers continue to elude us everywhere one looks, from the submicroscopic to the supermacroscopic ! The pretense is that all this magnificent science that we see and study arose from nothing, based solely on megatime and megauniverses. Insuperable statistical impossibilities are explained away with clever wordplay and nebulous theories – anything at all to deny the Hand of the Creator so evident to casual observers, of all educational backgrounds, and all nationalities, and all times. That is, except for those who will not see.

"The larger the island of knowledge, the longer the shoreline of wonder." - Ralph W. Sockman

* 
Job 28:5 As for the earth, out of it cometh bread: and under it is turned up as it were fire.*

The molten iron core of the earth was inconceivable because it was not discoverable when this passage was written. “Under (earth) it is turned up as it were fire.”

Ah, some may say, “But there were volcanoes even then.” True enough. But are not volcanoes both isolated and rare, and not so much “under” the earth as above it? The molten core of the earth accords far better with this passage. Their scientific agreement is not coincidental, but rather Divinely inspired and guided.



*Job 38:1,2 Then the Lord answered Job out of the whirlwind, and said

Who is this that darkeneth counsel by words without knowledge?*



How often one hears words uttered without knowledge by pretenders of science and enlightenment. "The universe is a free lunch." (Physicist Michio Kaku) The Lord does not take foolishness lightly. Neither should we.



*Job 38:24 By what way is the light parted, which scattereth the east wind upon the earth?*



The most learned scientist of antiquity could not have imagined the depth of this question. When light is "parted" by a diffraction grating, it can be shown to act both as particles as well as waves. These combinations of properties are difficult to understand much less explain. And the prodigious amounts of energy transmitted by solar radiation does indeed scatter the wind upon the earth as it heats different substances at different rates. Job could not have offered an adequate answer to the question, along the lines of: "Discrete photons of light travel together as a wave until parted into disparate visible components by striking and reflecting from solid objects into our eyes, while other wavelengths give up their energy as they are absorbed by solids and water. Temperature differentials established by ambient sunlight striking dissimilar surfaces create 'the east wind' so described."



*Psalms 19:1 The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork*.



NASA maintains a website which is updated daily. Its purpose, however unintended, is to “declare the glory of God” and to “show his handiwork.”



Astronomy Picture of the Day



How remarkable that so repetitive and well known a phenomenon as sunset can delight people of all ages, and all times, and all civilizations. How much more delightful are the glories and handiworks seen in national parks and sightseeing attractions worldwide, so many of which could scarcely have been known by the Bible’s authors. Nor had the first telescope been invented 2000 years ago. How is it that the more deeply we have seen, the more handiwork we have seen? How is it?

*Psalms 118:24 This is the day the Lord hath made; We will rejoice and be glad in it.*



Twenty-first century medicine confirms the benefits of joyfulness for both our mental health as well as our physical health. "We scientists have found that doing a kindness produces the single most reliable momentary increase in well-being of any exercise we have tested." – Martin Seligman, psychologist, in his book, *Flourish



Psalms 139:14 I will praise thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made: marvelous are thy works; and that my soul knoweth right well.*



Mankind is indeed “fearfully and wonderfully made.” The sophistication of our construction begins at the atomic level with atoms that are one part in 1017 nucleus and the rest empty space. Then consider our DNA, which is 45 trillion times more compact and efficient at data storage than today’s sophisticated computer microchips.



Our brains have the memory capacity of 100 billion megabytes, which far exceeds anything conceivably necessary from a “selection” point of view.



Our optic nerves transmit information at 4 gigabaud, which is 71,000 times faster than a dial up modem, and 1,000 times faster than an ultra-high speed T-1 line for a computer.

The human eye sees in exquisite detail, over about 13 orders of magnitude of light intensity. Although the eye is often said to be flawed in its design by Darwinists and atheists, I would very much like to see them replace a human eye with something better which they have designed and built from lab reagents.



Our ears hear over 13 orders of magnitude in sound intensity. Even more amazing, the ears perform a Fourier Analysis. In other words, our eardrums receive a single wave function at the eardrum. Then they break down this single wave function into its constituent sounds. For example, at a concert, your ears hear drums, brass, violins, solo arias, and the person behind you coughing, only because this blended noise is separated inside your ear. If your eyes performed a similar function, they would break down white just as a prism does, into disparate pure colors.



Finally, our two eyes enable us to discern distance (and relative size) by triangulation. Our brains automatically compute the angle of the object seen, and compute its approximate distance. Similarly, our two ears enable us to discern the direction from which noises emanate not only because we have two ears, but also because of the relatively slow speed of sound. A difference in the arrival time from one ear to another of one thousandth to one ten-thousandth of a second is sufficient to discern, so that we can tell generally where a sound originated. If sound were substantially faster, both our ears would hear the sound at about the same time, and we could not enjoy stereophonic music, nor tell where sounds came from.



In His wisdom, God made these velocities profoundly useful to us (as well, of course, as many, many other physical constants besides). They did not "evolve" to such values. And should they have been substantially different, no evolutionary "modification" could possibly compensate to give us what we now have.



Biochemistry is so profoundly complex that we are only beginning to appreciate how “wonderfully” we are made. Human blood defies LeChatelier’s Principle, in that when one molecule of oxygen is adsorbed by a hemoglobin molecule, its affinity for oxygen grows, instead of diminishing. The second molecule increases the affinity for the third, and the third for the fourth. This is precisely the reverse of normal chemistry principles and experimental observations. Our bodies’ powers of endurance and healing are absolutely astounding.



The list of features of our wonderful construction begins with conception, continues through growth, and concludes with our spiritual transformations evidenced time and again by the scientific observations of such people as Elisabeth Kubler-Ross. Dr. Kubler-Ross documented hundreds of instances of scientific evidence of a spiritual nature. She convincingly testified that she could not be persuaded of any naturalistic (scientific) explanation for it.



*Proverbs 3:20 By his knowledge the depths are broken up, and the clouds drop down the dew.*



Not only does the mid-Atlantic ridge constitute the continuing breakup of tectonic plates, but also in the depths of the Pacific Ocean also "the depths are broken up," as discovered by modern science, unknown almost two thousand years ago.



*Ecclesiastes 1:13 And I gave my heart to seek and search out by wisdom concerning all things that are done under heaven;*



“To seek out and search by wisdom.” This is the very definition of science, is it not? "Scientia," Latin for "truth," is the root word of science.



*Ecclesiastes 1:7 All rivers run into the sea; yet the sea is not full; unto the place from whence rivers come, thither they return again.*



The cyclical nature of nature encompasses us wherever we look. The water cycle is described only with utmost brevity in Ecclesiastes. Today we understand (considerably better than did Biblical authors) water and its importance in most chemical processes, as well as its profoundly fortuitous cyclical nature, as originally shown in the Bible. Beyond this, we can see and describe cycles of carbon, and nitrogen, and oxygen, and hydrogen. We are able to comprehend the nature of energy, and the conservation of not only energy, but also of matter itself. More complex by far is the transformation of matter into energy, which gives us sunlight continuously. Why should all these things be? And why so reliably? Why are chemical reactions so wonderfully and perfectly reversible? Why? For the same reason that we are “fearfully and wonderfully made”. For that reason. These Profound Fortuitous Interdependencies did not just fall into place with Megaluck over Megatime, as some scientists posit, with their fingers crossed.



*Ecclesiastes 2:13 Then I saw that wisdom excelleth folly, as far as light excelleth darkness.

Ecclesiastes 3:11 He hath made every thing beautiful in his time: also he hath set the world in their heart, so that no man can find out the work that God maketh from the beginning to the end.*

Can you name even one aspect of our universe that is known “from the beginning to the end”? Research continues everywhere, with absolutely no end remotely in sight. Research at the subatomic level, at the molecular level, at the cellular level, at the human level, at the planetary level, and at the galactic level.

How is it that we don’t know everything about anything, if all that we see came about from nothing, as materialists contend? How is that possible? Infinite complexity from nothing is infinitely absurd and infinitely improbable. There is not the slightest scientific basis or law for their grand proposal. Profound organization and information and consistency and physical laws, originating…. HOW ! An infinite God makes spiritual sense. He is utterly beyond the purview of science - which is merely another of God’s brilliant creations. As to the mocking question of “Who made God,” Professor John Lennox of Cambridge University gives us the answer: “If anybody made God, then He wouldn’t be God, would He!” (See Lennox’ one hour lecture, “A Matter of Gravity” on YouTube.)



Two things are incomprehensible. First, the origin of everything from nothing, and second, God Himself, Who so wondrously explains and accounts for everything else. Everyone must choose his own incomprehensible option. The first is random and meaningless, literally and figuratively. The second option is elegant, beautiful, hopeful, and wonderful beyond understanding. This second option matches the creative genius that surrounds us.





*Ecclesiastes 7:9 Anger rests in the bosom of fools.*

Atheists are exceedingly angry and bitter.



*Philipians 4:8 ...whatsoever things are of good report; if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things.*



Psychological professionals in the 21st Century have affirmed the substantial benefits, both mental and physical, of positive thinking in countless scholarly experiments, published papers and books.

*Proverbs 3:13 Happy is the man that findeth wisdom, and the man that getteth understanding.*

Twenty-first century social science confirms that Christians are happier than atheists. When confronted with this scientific truth, atheists angrily and snidely reply, “Ignorance is bliss.” It’s a lie, and lies are all they have. To contend otherwise is to claim that wisdom decreases your happiness. Why then do we strive for, and achieve wisdom?

*Proverbs 3:21 My son, let them not depart from your eyes. Keep sound wisdom and discretion;

Proverbs 16:16 How much better is it to get wisdom than gold! And to get understanding rather to be chosen than silver.*

Again and again there are Biblical references to wisdom, prudence, diligence, and other virtues. The essence of science is the pursuit of truth, knowledge, and facts. However, wisdom requires more than mere knowledge. Wisdom requires the integration of scientific truths with integrity, and far more virtuous conduct than the mere accretion of facts, which are value neutral.

Hitler and Stalin appreciated the science of Darwinism for its atheistic implications, but of wisdom, they had none.

* 

Ecclesiastes 3:11 He hath made every thing beautiful in his time: also he hath set the world in their heart, so that no man can find out the work that God maketh from the beginning to the end.*



Can you name even one aspect of our universe that is known “from the beginning to the end”? Research continues everywhere, with absolutely no end remotely in sight. Research at the molecular level, at the cellular level, at the human level, at the planetary level, and at the galactic level. How is it that we don’t know everything about anything, if all that we see came about from nothing, as secularists contend? How is that possible? Infinite complexity from nothing is infinitely absurd and infinitely improbable. There is not the slightest scientific basis or law for their grand proposal. Profound organization and information and consistency and physical laws, originating…. HOW ! An infinite God is utterly beyond the purview of science - which itself is another of God’s brilliant creations. As to the mocking question of “Who made God,” Professor John Lennox of Cambridge University gives us the answer: “If anybody made God, then He wouldn’t be God, would He!” (See Lennox’ one hour lecture, “A Matter of Gravity” on YouTube.)



Two things are incomprehensible. First, the origin of everything from nothing, and second, God Himself, Who so wondrously explains and accounts for everything else. Everyone must choose his own incomprehensible option. The first is random and meaningless, literally and figuratively. The second option is elegant, beautiful, hopeful, and wonderful beyond understanding. This second option matches the creative genius that surrounds us.

* 

Matthew 24:4 And Jesus answered and said unto them, Take heed that no man deceive you.*



Wisdom excelleth folly as far as light excelleth darkness. The Creator of mankind does not want anyone to be fooled; He does not wish that we be gullible, or duped by clever sounding words, whether they be from scientists wearing white robes, or priests wearing white robes. It is the essence of science to search for truth, and ask questions, and seek to answer them. Toward this end, we must acknowledge the extremely transitional nature of scientific “fact”, and the pretexts of contemporary scientific infallibility. Nowhere is the attempt to deceive us more malicious and destructive than when it seeks to deny the very existence of our Creator, and separate us from Him – permanently.



Forty percent of those listed in Who’s Who In Science acknowledge a personal belief in God. You must ask yourself why. Surely these people are not the fools that some scientific atheists accuse you and me of being.



*John 3:11, 12 Verily, verily, I say unto thee, We speak that we do know, and testify that we have seen; and ye receive not our witness.

If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe, if I tell you of heavenly things?*



The timeless veracity and wisdom of this statement is prophetic. After over two thousand years, what is often called the “myth” that is the Holy Bible, cannot remotely be discredited. To the contrary, the obvious and manifest benefits to mankind of Christianity have been repeatedly addressed by professionals in psychology, criminology, and other modern disciplines. The deep and abiding science, beginning with the first sentence in the first Book, is compelling testimony. For these reasons and more, Christianity is today the most popular human organization there has ever been. Yet many still “receive not our witness.” How can this be? Why will mankind not learn?



* 





I Thessalonians 5:21 Test all things; hold fast that which is good.*



Is there a more concise explanation of the scientific method? “Test all things”? The essence of modern science is the proof of testable hypotheses, as scientists like to say. Such technique was proposed in the Scriptures which are mocked by so many who are proud of their lack of belief.





*Hebrews 3:4 For every house is builded by some man; but he that built all things is God.*



This is confirmation of Genesis 1:1. Natural Theology, written in 1809 by William Paley, makes a similar argument from design. Just as a Boeing 747 can never be the product of an explosion in a junkyard, neither can the far more intricate construction of a human being be the ultimate product of random mutations, selectively but blindly “chosen.” See also www.2001Principle.net



*Mark 14:7 For ye have the poor with you always, and whensoever ye will ye may do them good: but me ye have not always.*



Although not strictly “scientific”, the foregoing verse demonstrates a profound economic truth notwithstanding the astonishing achievements of modern science. Had one the vision to see forward more than 2000 years to witness the abundance of food and material goods we now produce, surely one would have surmised that “the poor” would be no more than a relic of the ancient past. Not so. In fact, nowhere are “the poor” more common and more destitute than in socialist countries led by atheist despots.



*Acts 17:26 (God) hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation.*



Notwithstanding the vast differences in outward appearance of the peoples of the earth, from fair skinned Norwegians, to African pygmies, “all nations of men” are Homo sapiens. All humans can, within the constraints of blood typing, be transfused by the blood from men of “all nations.” This close biological relationship of mankind was cited before blood types and biological classifications were ever imagined. Moreover, Charles Darwin repeatedly expressed his disdain for what he considered to be the “lower forms of life,” the Africans. This vile racist, who was an admittedly mediocre student in school, originated the hypothesis, not even a theory, of common descent, now called “evolution” or “Darwinian evolution.” From a letter to Asa Gray, a close friend and Professor of Biology at Harvard University:



"I am quite conscious that my speculations run quite beyond the bounds of true science."



*John 18:37 Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice.

38 Pilate saith unto him, What is truth?*



Eighty-two percent of Americans believe that Jesus Christ was God, according to a survey taken by Princeton Survey Research Associates on Dec 2 and 3, 2004 for Newsweek Magazine. Jesus Christ said that people of the truth hear his voice. Today one especially hears atheists, most of them liberals, reply just as Pontius Pilate did two thousand years ago with a mockingly dishonest question: “What is truth?” when even a ten year old has the capacity to know what truth is. Some things never change.



*Luke 21:33; Matthew 24:35 Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away.*



Just as Genesis 1:1 foretold the scientific truth of the Big Bang, or as it is almost universally called today, “The Moment of Creation”, so too does the Gospel of Luke describe the passing away of matter. Stars like our own sun are consuming their own hydrogen, fusing it into helium, losing vast amounts of mass, and radiating that energy into the heavens. All starlight will eventually pass away, and the universe will ultimately become dark and absolutely cold (“heat death”), devoid of life as we know it. Numerous massive black holes have been indirectly observed. They attract matter and light into their domain, never to be seen again. Or so scientists thought before they once again changed their mind. It is now posited that Black Holes can radiate away energy, which is to say, mass. Even Black Holes seem to pass away.





The duration of primary elements of matter we call protons have a lifetime estimated to be 10 to the 33rd power years. The heaven and the earth shall pass into cold, dark oblivion, just as stated in the Holy Bible, a book ceaselessly mocked and ridiculed by the left. Thousands of years after the Bible said heaven and earth shall pass away, the Second Law of Thermodynamics simply repeated it, in the name of “science.” Universal heat death is the ultimate and final increase in entropy, or disorder. The origin of our universe as well as its demise were both described in an ancient book with astonishing precision. The universe has not always existed, as previously thought by scientists, nor was it assembled piecemeal. It was “created” with a Big Bang. The universe will not continue on forever; it will, it must pass away. These were not lucky guesses. They were inspirations from our Creator who made science.







Footnote 1: By “the insuperable statistics of abiogenesis, I mean the utter impossibility of any naturalistic explanation for synthesizing even a single polypeptide, much less the enormous variety of proteins, enzymes, and related structures which constitute every living cell. Our polypeptides, as they are called, are so profoundly complex that even with a blueprint, contemporary scientists cannot produce them in a laboratory from reagents. How much more hopeless it would be to expect a pool of dirty water to produce hundreds proteins necessary for the first living cell.



Footnote 2: By “insuperable statistics of the Anthropic Principle, I refer to the several dozen physical constants, such as the gravitational constant, the strong nuclear force, and the fine structure constant, which are so finely tuned that if they were as little as one part in 1040th larger or smaller, there would be no planet earth and no human beings. The gravitational constant in particular is precise within one part in 10 to the 10120th. What has been so desperately offered as an explanation for the Anthropic Principle is the preposterous fantasy of “Multiverse,” an infinite number of universes, of which we live in “just the right one.” It is not remotely connected to science or reality.





* Profound Fortuitous Interdependencies, a term I originated, refers to the interrelated factors surrounding us that are utterly essential to life as civilized people know and enjoy. There is a pervasive elegance throughout our world and indeed our universe which far transcends the atheistic nihilism so popular today in what they call "intellectual" circles.



First example of Profound Fortuitous Interdependencies: Oxygen happens to be one of the more reactive elements, and it exists in the most reactive phase, viz. gas. This dynamic equilibrium producing our essential breath of life is possible only because: 1. Reactions are reversible (how profoundly fortuitous!) and; 2. The reversibility of such reactions is, so far as we can tell, 100% and; 3. Natural laws are consistent and harmonious and discoverable, and; 4. Plants recycle oxygen from carbon dioxide, and water.



Second example of PFIs: The sophisticated engineering of matter, constructed primarily out of three simple building blocks, electrons, protons, and neutrons, is evidenced by the fact that only one part in 1017 is matter, and the rest is empty space. Moreover these three foundational components can be combined with only slight variations to give us unique characteristics as found in metals, including high shear strength, malleability, ductility, high heat and electrical conductivity, profound availability, high melting points, and other features without which there could be no airplanes, cars, or even internal combustion engines. As essential as metals** are to internal combustion engines, they would be virtually worthless without hydrocarbons to burn in them, which hydrocarbons just happen to be available in wondrous, underground storage tanks, to be refined and used worldwide.

But without oxygen, and without its dispersal throughout our atmosphere, there could be no cars, no plane rides to faraway places, and no fires, even inside engines. Fire, a simple chemical reaction we have always taken for granted, is but one of the countless Profound Fortuitous Interdependencies.



** In contrast to water, plastic, glass, and fused quartz, which transmit light with near perfection, unlike metals.



Third example of PFIs: Vision, made possible only through the combined PFIs of the elegant properties of electromagnetic radiation in the visible portion of that spectrum, including the capacity to transmit both energy as well as information, over unimaginable distances, with almost perfect fidelity and reliability, and to be magically bent by a wide variety of readily available transparent materials, so as to enable wide-angle vision instead of 1:1 tunnel vision of an image roughly the same size as the receiving retina, and all the while photons pass through photons in every direction and in every wavelength, utterly unaffected in the slightest.



Additional reading: Science and the Bible


----------



## Hollie

ChemEngineer said:


> Thunderbird said:
> 
> 
> 
> Science does not disprove the Bible.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Science of the Bible*​
> 
> As a chemical engineer, I understand, and subscribe to the tenets of the scientific method. If anything has given me an appreciation for the Profound Fortuitous Interdependencies* which make life possible, it is the objectivity engendered by my scientific background, coupled with common sense so often lacking in many well educated people. How anti-intellectual it is of the godless Left to denigrate Christians, often maliciously so. Calling Christians “fundies” and “believers in a flat earth” seems to give many people the perverse notion that they are erudite, and can consign Christians to the backwaters of ignorance. Just as Jesus overturned the tables of the money-changers in His Temple, so too is it my intention to overturn the tables of the intolerant Left with these personally written observations correlating science with its Creator.
> 
> 
> *Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.*
> 
> The Holy Bible was written more than 2000 years ago. In 1924, Edwin Hubble proved that the spiral nebula in the constellation Andromeda was a separate island universe, apart from the Milky Way. This extended the size and scale of our universe by many orders of magnitude. Then, after hearing Albert Einstein's theory of relativity, Georges Lemaître, an ordained Catholic priest, proposed the “primeval atom” in 1927 – in other words, the creation of the universe. This breathtaking advancement in scientific thinking came not from a pontificating atheist, claiming to have exclusive jurisdiction over truth and science, but rather from a devoted follower of the Creator of heaven and earth. Contrary to their pretensions, atheists do not possess the only key to discovery and knowledge.
> 
> In 1929, Fred Hubble discovered the Red Shift, eliminating any doubt that Lemaitre was right and Einstein wrong. Einstein had said to Lemaître , "your mathematics is correct but your physics is abominable." This phenomenon, Red Shift, shows that some galaxies are moving away from us at greater speeds than others, and that such velocities are proportional to their distance. This gave strong corroboration to the Big Bang theory of creation. The residual heat predicted in 1927 by Lemaître, and derisively dismissed by Albert Einstein, was later confirmed by Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson who in 1965 discovered the residual background radiation which is a remnant of the Big Bang. Penzias and Wilson of course received the Nobel Prize for their discovery, which was accidental. The penning of Genesis 1:1 was not.
> 
> Prior to Lemaître’s radical proposal, scientists believed that the universe was eternal, that it had always been as we see it today. An inherent aspect of the Steady State Universe is the assumption that matter is continuously being created, somewhere, somehow. This passed for science, until it was disproved in the 1965 Astrophysical Journal.
> 
> So we see Twentieth Century confirmation of the profoundly deep science originally expressed in the first sentence of the first paragraph of the first book of the Bible, and scientifically advanced centuries later by a Catholic priest (A “Fundie”), before anyone else.
> 
> 
> *Genesis 2:7 And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
> 
> Genesis 3:19 In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.*
> 
> Modern chemistry could not have begun before 1802, when John Dalton formally provided experimental evidence that matter is composed of discrete atoms. Everything before this was mere speculation – guesswork. Nevertheless, it is clearly stated in Genesis that man is “formed of the dust of the ground”, which is to say, the same elements of carbon, oxygen, hydrogen, iron, nitrogen, etc, that we find in . . . dust of the ground, minerals.
> 
> 
> *Genesis 2:19 And out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field, and every foul of the air;*
> 
> The same elements which form humans also form animals everywhere. However, there is no Biblical reference to “a living soul” with respect to animals. Nor do animals have the capacity to worship and appreciate the spirituality and hope that is one of the premier hallmarks of mankind, and our supreme bequest.
> 
> 
> *Genesis 6:11 The earth also was corrupt before God, and the earth was filled with violence.*
> 
> One would think that as a result of the disciplines and analyses and benefits of human enlightenment, mankind should have been able to eliminate corruption and violence so prevalent thousands of years ago. Today, we have tools of production and health and social enlightenment unimaginable when the book of Genesis was written. But the earth today is still full of corruption and violence. Cornucopias of goods and services have not satisfied mankind’s lust for more, nor have psychologists and sociologists resolved the complex issues that lead people into destructive behavior. With burgeoning prison populations, and monstrous acts of evil on the increase worldwide, there seems little hope that corruption and violence will ever be eradicated.
> 
> *Genesis 7:19 And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered.*
> 
> Although the North American Continent was unknown when the Bible was written, paleontologists confirm that the interior of North America was once covered by shallow seas. Fossil evidence from distant parts of the globe that were unknown to inhabitants of ancient Israel lends scientific confirmation to the Noachian Flood described in the most ancient book of science known to man, the Holy Bible. I do not pretend to know the length of the six "days" of creation. However it is abundantly clear to me that the Elegance of Everything and the insuperable statistics of abiogenesis1 and the Anthropic Principle2 are eternally inexplicable by any exclusively naturalistic method. To those with eyes, God’s Hand is clearly visible everywhere one looks.
> 
> *Matthew 5:16 Let your light shine before men in such a way that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father who is in heaven. *
> 
> We scientists have found that doing a kindness produces the single most reliable momentary increase in well-being of any exercise we have tested. – *Flourish*, by Martin Seligman, psychologist
> 
> If you want to be happy, do good, be kind, give.
> 
> 
> *Exodus 3:14 I am hath sent me unto you.....
> 
> John 9:58 Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.*
> 
> The naturalistic, if you will, “scientific” approach to explaining how man and energy and matter and space originated is to examine what is observable, and formulate hypotheses and theories based on observation and reason. There is no scientific explanation for the origin of matter and energy and information at the Moment of Creation, the Singularity, and obviously no experiment can examine, much less confirm any hypothesis of what first happened to lead to us and everything we see.
> 
> In contrast, God defies scientific explanation because He is outside its purview. If miracles were scientifically explicable, they would not be miracles. After all, God created the physical realm that is the subject of scientific inquiry and we are still desperately trying to understand that aspect of His handiwork. Had mere mortals written where God came from without divine inspiration, they surely could not have presented such an elegant explanation as “I am” – an explanation that suffices even two thousand years later. Where did God come from? "I am." The universe is not eternal, but God is.
> 
> I have only a vague notion of how my computer works as I type this on it. Although I don’t know how it works, I do know that it is real and that it operates in a marvelous, almost magical way. I don’t need to understand things to believe in and use them. And how much more marvelous is my brain and yours than these primitive computers, not one of which designed, much less built itself.
> 
> “Many people don’t realize that science basically involves assumptions and faith. Wonderful things in both science and religion come from our efforts based on observations, thoughtful assumptions, faith and logic. (With the findings of modern physics, it) seems extremely unlikely (that the existence of life and humanity are ) just accidental.” – Charles Townes, Nobel Laureate and Professor of Physics at UC Berkeley
> 
> Romans 1:19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them (people); for God hath shewed it unto them.
> 
> 20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they (non-believers) are without excuse:
> 
> "Newton and his contemporaries believed that in doing science they were uncovering the divine plan for the universe in the form of its underlying mathematical order." – Paul Davies
> 
> Some of leading scientists whose work was motivated by their faith were: Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo, Brahe, Descartes, Boyle, Newton, Leibniz, Gassendi, Pascal, Mersenne, Cuvier, Harvey, Dalton, Faraday, Herschel, Joule, Lyell, Lavoisier, Priestley, Kelvin, Ohm, Ampere, Steno, Pasteur, Maxwell, Planck, Mendel.
> 
> *Job 26:7 He stretcheth out the north over the empty place, and hangeth the earth upon nothing.*
> 
> Has anyone the slightest doubt as to how “empty” the North Pole is? Nobody living in the Middle East could possibly have visited “the north” so as to confirm what was then being written. These immutable scientific truths – two here in a single sentence - were far too coincidental to be attributable to luck. No, they were divinely inspired, as were so many things in the Bible. The earth truly hangs “upon nothing”, as confirmed by countless photographs from satellites and space stations, not to mention men on the moon, and the north is indeed an “empty place” by any measure.
> 
> *Job 26:14 Lo, these are parts of his ways: but how little a portion is heard of him? but the thunder of his power who can understand?*
> 
> With all our wisdom, and all our science, and all our research, “who can understand” anything today. Ultimate scientific answers continue to elude us everywhere one looks, from the submicroscopic to the supermacroscopic ! The pretense is that all this magnificent science that we see and study arose from nothing, based solely on megatime and megauniverses. Insuperable statistical impossibilities are explained away with clever wordplay and nebulous theories – anything at all to deny the Hand of the Creator so evident to casual observers, of all educational backgrounds, and all nationalities, and all times. That is, except for those who will not see.
> 
> "The larger the island of knowledge, the longer the shoreline of wonder." - Ralph W. Sockman
> 
> *
> Job 28:5 As for the earth, out of it cometh bread: and under it is turned up as it were fire.*
> 
> The molten iron core of the earth was inconceivable because it was not discoverable when this passage was written. “Under (earth) it is turned up as it were fire.”
> 
> Ah, some may say, “But there were volcanoes even then.” True enough. But are not volcanoes both isolated and rare, and not so much “under” the earth as above it? The molten core of the earth accords far better with this passage. Their scientific agreement is not coincidental, but rather Divinely inspired and guided.
> 
> 
> 
> *Job 38:1,2 Then the Lord answered Job out of the whirlwind, and said
> 
> Who is this that darkeneth counsel by words without knowledge?*
> 
> 
> 
> How often one hears words uttered without knowledge by pretenders of science and enlightenment. "The universe is a free lunch." (Physicist Michio Kaku) The Lord does not take foolishness lightly. Neither should we.
> 
> 
> 
> *Job 38:24 By what way is the light parted, which scattereth the east wind upon the earth?*
> 
> 
> 
> The most learned scientist of antiquity could not have imagined the depth of this question. When light is "parted" by a diffraction grating, it can be shown to act both as particles as well as waves. These combinations of properties are difficult to understand much less explain. And the prodigious amounts of energy transmitted by solar radiation does indeed scatter the wind upon the earth as it heats different substances at different rates. Job could not have offered an adequate answer to the question, along the lines of: "Discrete photons of light travel together as a wave until parted into disparate visible components by striking and reflecting from solid objects into our eyes, while other wavelengths give up their energy as they are absorbed by solids and water. Temperature differentials established by ambient sunlight striking dissimilar surfaces create 'the east wind' so described."
> 
> 
> 
> *Psalms 19:1 The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork*.
> 
> 
> 
> NASA maintains a website which is updated daily. Its purpose, however unintended, is to “declare the glory of God” and to “show his handiwork.”
> 
> 
> 
> Astronomy Picture of the Day
> 
> 
> 
> How remarkable that so repetitive and well known a phenomenon as sunset can delight people of all ages, and all times, and all civilizations. How much more delightful are the glories and handiworks seen in national parks and sightseeing attractions worldwide, so many of which could scarcely have been known by the Bible’s authors. Nor had the first telescope been invented 2000 years ago. How is it that the more deeply we have seen, the more handiwork we have seen? How is it?
> 
> *Psalms 118:24 This is the day the Lord hath made; We will rejoice and be glad in it.*
> 
> 
> 
> Twenty-first century medicine confirms the benefits of joyfulness for both our mental health as well as our physical health. "We scientists have found that doing a kindness produces the single most reliable momentary increase in well-being of any exercise we have tested." – Martin Seligman, psychologist, in his book, *Flourish
> 
> 
> 
> Psalms 139:14 I will praise thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made: marvelous are thy works; and that my soul knoweth right well.*
> 
> 
> 
> Mankind is indeed “fearfully and wonderfully made.” The sophistication of our construction begins at the atomic level with atoms that are one part in 1017 nucleus and the rest empty space. Then consider our DNA, which is 45 trillion times more compact and efficient at data storage than today’s sophisticated computer microchips.
> 
> 
> 
> Our brains have the memory capacity of 100 billion megabytes, which far exceeds anything conceivably necessary from a “selection” point of view.
> 
> 
> 
> Our optic nerves transmit information at 4 gigabaud, which is 71,000 times faster than a dial up modem, and 1,000 times faster than an ultra-high speed T-1 line for a computer.
> 
> The human eye sees in exquisite detail, over about 13 orders of magnitude of light intensity. Although the eye is often said to be flawed in its design by Darwinists and atheists, I would very much like to see them replace a human eye with something better which they have designed and built from lab reagents.
> 
> 
> 
> Our ears hear over 13 orders of magnitude in sound intensity. Even more amazing, the ears perform a Fourier Analysis. In other words, our eardrums receive a single wave function at the eardrum. Then they break down this single wave function into its constituent sounds. For example, at a concert, your ears hear drums, brass, violins, solo arias, and the person behind you coughing, only because this blended noise is separated inside your ear. If your eyes performed a similar function, they would break down white just as a prism does, into disparate pure colors.
> 
> 
> 
> Finally, our two eyes enable us to discern distance (and relative size) by triangulation. Our brains automatically compute the angle of the object seen, and compute its approximate distance. Similarly, our two ears enable us to discern the direction from which noises emanate not only because we have two ears, but also because of the relatively slow speed of sound. A difference in the arrival time from one ear to another of one thousandth to one ten-thousandth of a second is sufficient to discern, so that we can tell generally where a sound originated. If sound were substantially faster, both our ears would hear the sound at about the same time, and we could not enjoy stereophonic music, nor tell where sounds came from.
> 
> 
> 
> In His wisdom, God made these velocities profoundly useful to us (as well, of course, as many, many other physical constants besides). They did not "evolve" to such values. And should they have been substantially different, no evolutionary "modification" could possibly compensate to give us what we now have.
> 
> 
> 
> Biochemistry is so profoundly complex that we are only beginning to appreciate how “wonderfully” we are made. Human blood defies LeChatelier’s Principle, in that when one molecule of oxygen is adsorbed by a hemoglobin molecule, its affinity for oxygen grows, instead of diminishing. The second molecule increases the affinity for the third, and the third for the fourth. This is precisely the reverse of normal chemistry principles and experimental observations. Our bodies’ powers of endurance and healing are absolutely astounding.
> 
> 
> 
> The list of features of our wonderful construction begins with conception, continues through growth, and concludes with our spiritual transformations evidenced time and again by the scientific observations of such people as Elisabeth Kubler-Ross. Dr. Kubler-Ross documented hundreds of instances of scientific evidence of a spiritual nature. She convincingly testified that she could not be persuaded of any naturalistic (scientific) explanation for it.
> 
> 
> 
> *Proverbs 3:20 By his knowledge the depths are broken up, and the clouds drop down the dew.*
> 
> 
> 
> Not only does the mid-Atlantic ridge constitute the continuing breakup of tectonic plates, but also in the depths of the Pacific Ocean also "the depths are broken up," as discovered by modern science, unknown almost two thousand years ago.
> 
> 
> 
> *Ecclesiastes 1:13 And I gave my heart to seek and search out by wisdom concerning all things that are done under heaven;*
> 
> 
> 
> “To seek out and search by wisdom.” This is the very definition of science, is it not? "Scientia," Latin for "truth," is the root word of science.
> 
> 
> 
> *Ecclesiastes 1:7 All rivers run into the sea; yet the sea is not full; unto the place from whence rivers come, thither they return again.*
> 
> 
> 
> The cyclical nature of nature encompasses us wherever we look. The water cycle is described only with utmost brevity in Ecclesiastes. Today we understand (considerably better than did Biblical authors) water and its importance in most chemical processes, as well as its profoundly fortuitous cyclical nature, as originally shown in the Bible. Beyond this, we can see and describe cycles of carbon, and nitrogen, and oxygen, and hydrogen. We are able to comprehend the nature of energy, and the conservation of not only energy, but also of matter itself. More complex by far is the transformation of matter into energy, which gives us sunlight continuously. Why should all these things be? And why so reliably? Why are chemical reactions so wonderfully and perfectly reversible? Why? For the same reason that we are “fearfully and wonderfully made”. For that reason. These Profound Fortuitous Interdependencies did not just fall into place with Megaluck over Megatime, as some scientists posit, with their fingers crossed.
> 
> 
> 
> *Ecclesiastes 2:13 Then I saw that wisdom excelleth folly, as far as light excelleth darkness.
> 
> Ecclesiastes 3:11 He hath made every thing beautiful in his time: also he hath set the world in their heart, so that no man can find out the work that God maketh from the beginning to the end.*
> 
> Can you name even one aspect of our universe that is known “from the beginning to the end”? Research continues everywhere, with absolutely no end remotely in sight. Research at the subatomic level, at the molecular level, at the cellular level, at the human level, at the planetary level, and at the galactic level.
> 
> How is it that we don’t know everything about anything, if all that we see came about from nothing, as materialists contend? How is that possible? Infinite complexity from nothing is infinitely absurd and infinitely improbable. There is not the slightest scientific basis or law for their grand proposal. Profound organization and information and consistency and physical laws, originating…. HOW ! An infinite God makes spiritual sense. He is utterly beyond the purview of science - which is merely another of God’s brilliant creations. As to the mocking question of “Who made God,” Professor John Lennox of Cambridge University gives us the answer: “If anybody made God, then He wouldn’t be God, would He!” (See Lennox’ one hour lecture, “A Matter of Gravity” on YouTube.)
> 
> 
> 
> Two things are incomprehensible. First, the origin of everything from nothing, and second, God Himself, Who so wondrously explains and accounts for everything else. Everyone must choose his own incomprehensible option. The first is random and meaningless, literally and figuratively. The second option is elegant, beautiful, hopeful, and wonderful beyond understanding. This second option matches the creative genius that surrounds us.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Ecclesiastes 7:9 Anger rests in the bosom of fools.*
> 
> Atheists are exceedingly angry and bitter.
> 
> 
> 
> *Philipians 4:8 ...whatsoever things are of good report; if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things.*
> 
> 
> 
> Psychological professionals in the 21st Century have affirmed the substantial benefits, both mental and physical, of positive thinking in countless scholarly experiments, published papers and books.
> 
> *Proverbs 3:13 Happy is the man that findeth wisdom, and the man that getteth understanding.*
> 
> Twenty-first century social science confirms that Christians are happier than atheists. When confronted with this scientific truth, atheists angrily and snidely reply, “Ignorance is bliss.” It’s a lie, and lies are all they have. To contend otherwise is to claim that wisdom decreases your happiness. Why then do we strive for, and achieve wisdom?
> 
> *Proverbs 3:21 My son, let them not depart from your eyes. Keep sound wisdom and discretion;
> 
> Proverbs 16:16 How much better is it to get wisdom than gold! And to get understanding rather to be chosen than silver.*
> 
> Again and again there are Biblical references to wisdom, prudence, diligence, and other virtues. The essence of science is the pursuit of truth, knowledge, and facts. However, wisdom requires more than mere knowledge. Wisdom requires the integration of scientific truths with integrity, and far more virtuous conduct than the mere accretion of facts, which are value neutral.
> 
> Hitler and Stalin appreciated the science of Darwinism for its atheistic implications, but of wisdom, they had none.
> 
> *
> 
> Ecclesiastes 3:11 He hath made every thing beautiful in his time: also he hath set the world in their heart, so that no man can find out the work that God maketh from the beginning to the end.*
> 
> 
> 
> Can you name even one aspect of our universe that is known “from the beginning to the end”? Research continues everywhere, with absolutely no end remotely in sight. Research at the molecular level, at the cellular level, at the human level, at the planetary level, and at the galactic level. How is it that we don’t know everything about anything, if all that we see came about from nothing, as secularists contend? How is that possible? Infinite complexity from nothing is infinitely absurd and infinitely improbable. There is not the slightest scientific basis or law for their grand proposal. Profound organization and information and consistency and physical laws, originating…. HOW ! An infinite God is utterly beyond the purview of science - which itself is another of God’s brilliant creations. As to the mocking question of “Who made God,” Professor John Lennox of Cambridge University gives us the answer: “If anybody made God, then He wouldn’t be God, would He!” (See Lennox’ one hour lecture, “A Matter of Gravity” on YouTube.)
> 
> 
> 
> Two things are incomprehensible. First, the origin of everything from nothing, and second, God Himself, Who so wondrously explains and accounts for everything else. Everyone must choose his own incomprehensible option. The first is random and meaningless, literally and figuratively. The second option is elegant, beautiful, hopeful, and wonderful beyond understanding. This second option matches the creative genius that surrounds us.
> 
> *
> 
> Matthew 24:4 And Jesus answered and said unto them, Take heed that no man deceive you.*
> 
> 
> 
> Wisdom excelleth folly as far as light excelleth darkness. The Creator of mankind does not want anyone to be fooled; He does not wish that we be gullible, or duped by clever sounding words, whether they be from scientists wearing white robes, or priests wearing white robes. It is the essence of science to search for truth, and ask questions, and seek to answer them. Toward this end, we must acknowledge the extremely transitional nature of scientific “fact”, and the pretexts of contemporary scientific infallibility. Nowhere is the attempt to deceive us more malicious and destructive than when it seeks to deny the very existence of our Creator, and separate us from Him – permanently.
> 
> 
> 
> Forty percent of those listed in Who’s Who In Science acknowledge a personal belief in God. You must ask yourself why. Surely these people are not the fools that some scientific atheists accuse you and me of being.
> 
> 
> 
> *John 3:11, 12 Verily, verily, I say unto thee, We speak that we do know, and testify that we have seen; and ye receive not our witness.
> 
> If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe, if I tell you of heavenly things?*
> 
> 
> 
> The timeless veracity and wisdom of this statement is prophetic. After over two thousand years, what is often called the “myth” that is the Holy Bible, cannot remotely be discredited. To the contrary, the obvious and manifest benefits to mankind of Christianity have been repeatedly addressed by professionals in psychology, criminology, and other modern disciplines. The deep and abiding science, beginning with the first sentence in the first Book, is compelling testimony. For these reasons and more, Christianity is today the most popular human organization there has ever been. Yet many still “receive not our witness.” How can this be? Why will mankind not learn?
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I Thessalonians 5:21 Test all things; hold fast that which is good.*
> 
> 
> 
> Is there a more concise explanation of the scientific method? “Test all things”? The essence of modern science is the proof of testable hypotheses, as scientists like to say. Such technique was proposed in the Scriptures which are mocked by so many who are proud of their lack of belief.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Hebrews 3:4 For every house is builded by some man; but he that built all things is God.*
> 
> 
> 
> This is confirmation of Genesis 1:1. Natural Theology, written in 1809 by William Paley, makes a similar argument from design. Just as a Boeing 747 can never be the product of an explosion in a junkyard, neither can the far more intricate construction of a human being be the ultimate product of random mutations, selectively but blindly “chosen.” See also www.2001Principle.net
> 
> 
> 
> *Mark 14:7 For ye have the poor with you always, and whensoever ye will ye may do them good: but me ye have not always.*
> 
> 
> 
> Although not strictly “scientific”, the foregoing verse demonstrates a profound economic truth notwithstanding the astonishing achievements of modern science. Had one the vision to see forward more than 2000 years to witness the abundance of food and material goods we now produce, surely one would have surmised that “the poor” would be no more than a relic of the ancient past. Not so. In fact, nowhere are “the poor” more common and more destitute than in socialist countries led by atheist despots.
> 
> 
> 
> *Acts 17:26 (God) hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation.*
> 
> 
> 
> Notwithstanding the vast differences in outward appearance of the peoples of the earth, from fair skinned Norwegians, to African pygmies, “all nations of men” are Homo sapiens. All humans can, within the constraints of blood typing, be transfused by the blood from men of “all nations.” This close biological relationship of mankind was cited before blood types and biological classifications were ever imagined. Moreover, Charles Darwin repeatedly expressed his disdain for what he considered to be the “lower forms of life,” the Africans. This vile racist, who was an admittedly mediocre student in school, originated the hypothesis, not even a theory, of common descent, now called “evolution” or “Darwinian evolution.” From a letter to Asa Gray, a close friend and Professor of Biology at Harvard University:
> 
> 
> 
> "I am quite conscious that my speculations run quite beyond the bounds of true science."
> 
> 
> 
> *John 18:37 Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice.
> 
> 38 Pilate saith unto him, What is truth?*
> 
> 
> 
> Eighty-two percent of Americans believe that Jesus Christ was God, according to a survey taken by Princeton Survey Research Associates on Dec 2 and 3, 2004 for Newsweek Magazine. Jesus Christ said that people of the truth hear his voice. Today one especially hears atheists, most of them liberals, reply just as Pontius Pilate did two thousand years ago with a mockingly dishonest question: “What is truth?” when even a ten year old has the capacity to know what truth is. Some things never change.
> 
> 
> 
> *Luke 21:33; Matthew 24:35 Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away.*
> 
> 
> 
> Just as Genesis 1:1 foretold the scientific truth of the Big Bang, or as it is almost universally called today, “The Moment of Creation”, so too does the Gospel of Luke describe the passing away of matter. Stars like our own sun are consuming their own hydrogen, fusing it into helium, losing vast amounts of mass, and radiating that energy into the heavens. All starlight will eventually pass away, and the universe will ultimately become dark and absolutely cold (“heat death”), devoid of life as we know it. Numerous massive black holes have been indirectly observed. They attract matter and light into their domain, never to be seen again. Or so scientists thought before they once again changed their mind. It is now posited that Black Holes can radiate away energy, which is to say, mass. Even Black Holes seem to pass away.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The duration of primary elements of matter we call protons have a lifetime estimated to be 10 to the 33rd power years. The heaven and the earth shall pass into cold, dark oblivion, just as stated in the Holy Bible, a book ceaselessly mocked and ridiculed by the left. Thousands of years after the Bible said heaven and earth shall pass away, the Second Law of Thermodynamics simply repeated it, in the name of “science.” Universal heat death is the ultimate and final increase in entropy, or disorder. The origin of our universe as well as its demise were both described in an ancient book with astonishing precision. The universe has not always existed, as previously thought by scientists, nor was it assembled piecemeal. It was “created” with a Big Bang. The universe will not continue on forever; it will, it must pass away. These were not lucky guesses. They were inspirations from our Creator who made science.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Footnote 1: By “the insuperable statistics of abiogenesis, I mean the utter impossibility of any naturalistic explanation for synthesizing even a single polypeptide, much less the enormous variety of proteins, enzymes, and related structures which constitute every living cell. Our polypeptides, as they are called, are so profoundly complex that even with a blueprint, contemporary scientists cannot produce them in a laboratory from reagents. How much more hopeless it would be to expect a pool of dirty water to produce hundreds proteins necessary for the first living cell.
> 
> 
> 
> Footnote 2: By “insuperable statistics of the Anthropic Principle, I refer to the several dozen physical constants, such as the gravitational constant, the strong nuclear force, and the fine structure constant, which are so finely tuned that if they were as little as one part in 1040th larger or smaller, there would be no planet earth and no human beings. The gravitational constant in particular is precise within one part in 10 to the 10120th. What has been so desperately offered as an explanation for the Anthropic Principle is the preposterous fantasy of “Multiverse,” an infinite number of universes, of which we live in “just the right one.” It is not remotely connected to science or reality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> * Profound Fortuitous Interdependencies, a term I originated, refers to the interrelated factors surrounding us that are utterly essential to life as civilized people know and enjoy. There is a pervasive elegance throughout our world and indeed our universe which far transcends the atheistic nihilism so popular today in what they call "intellectual" circles.
> 
> 
> 
> First example of Profound Fortuitous Interdependencies: Oxygen happens to be one of the more reactive elements, and it exists in the most reactive phase, viz. gas. This dynamic equilibrium producing our essential breath of life is possible only because: 1. Reactions are reversible (how profoundly fortuitous!) and; 2. The reversibility of such reactions is, so far as we can tell, 100% and; 3. Natural laws are consistent and harmonious and discoverable, and; 4. Plants recycle oxygen from carbon dioxide, and water.
> 
> 
> 
> Second example of PFIs: The sophisticated engineering of matter, constructed primarily out of three simple building blocks, electrons, protons, and neutrons, is evidenced by the fact that only one part in 1017 is matter, and the rest is empty space. Moreover these three foundational components can be combined with only slight variations to give us unique characteristics as found in metals, including high shear strength, malleability, ductility, high heat and electrical conductivity, profound availability, high melting points, and other features without which there could be no airplanes, cars, or even internal combustion engines. As essential as metals** are to internal combustion engines, they would be virtually worthless without hydrocarbons to burn in them, which hydrocarbons just happen to be available in wondrous, underground storage tanks, to be refined and used worldwide.
> 
> But without oxygen, and without its dispersal throughout our atmosphere, there could be no cars, no plane rides to faraway places, and no fires, even inside engines. Fire, a simple chemical reaction we have always taken for granted, is but one of the countless Profound Fortuitous Interdependencies.
> 
> 
> 
> ** In contrast to water, plastic, glass, and fused quartz, which transmit light with near perfection, unlike metals.
> 
> 
> 
> Third example of PFIs: Vision, made possible only through the combined PFIs of the elegant properties of electromagnetic radiation in the visible portion of that spectrum, including the capacity to transmit both energy as well as information, over unimaginable distances, with almost perfect fidelity and reliability, and to be magically bent by a wide variety of readily available transparent materials, so as to enable wide-angle vision instead of 1:1 tunnel vision of an image roughly the same size as the receiving retina, and all the while photons pass through photons in every direction and in every wavelength, utterly unaffected in the slightest.
> 
> 
> 
> Additional reading: Science and the Bible
Click to expand...

So you’re a believer in magic and superstition.


----------



## ReinyDays

ChemEngineer said:


> As a chemical engineer ...



HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW ...

God, now I have beer up my nose ...

If you knew anything about chemistry, you'd know the dust of the ground is silicon dioxide ...


----------



## james bond

GLASNOST said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> The facts are the universe, Earth, and everything in it are here.  That is evidence for God.  You're just too much an idiot to realize it.  You've been too stupefied by the other guy to realize it.  Good bye.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The facts are the universe, Earth, and everything in it that are here including plastic, harnessed atoms, television, the internal combustion engine, pyrotechnics, silly-cone titties, Botox lips, Pirelli p-zero225/40R18 92Y XL tyres, the MiG-31, Jerry Lee Lewis’ cousin,  jazz music, Dolly Parton’s defiance of gravity, the Holocaust, and the priapistic Khoisan penis is evidence that god may not exist. You’re just too much of a self-inflicted ignoramus to realize it. Hello!
> 
> View attachment 426551
Click to expand...


This is too idiotic and stupid of a post that I can only repost my book for you.  The _only_ way for the big bang and life to begin and happen is God, the creator.





I'm glad that you're on the other side.


----------



## james bond

ReinyDays said:


> ChemEngineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> As a chemical engineer ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW ...
> 
> God, now I have beer up my nose ...
> 
> If you knew anything about chemistry, you'd know the dust of the ground is silicon dioxide ...
Click to expand...


If you knew anything about God, then you'd know why you were made from the "dust of the Earth" and the breath of God.  The latter is why there is no abiogenesis nor alien life elsewhere.

1) Uniqueness of man compared to his other living creations
2) We are lowly compared to God and dependent upon him
3) Yet, heaven on Earth was made for man to rule along with woman


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

james bond said:


> The _only_ way for the big bang and life to begin and happen is God, the creator.


Says you. You are free to think that. But you kind of embarrass yourself when you demand others adopt your iron aged nonsense. And this has no place in the science section.


----------



## james bond

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> The _only_ way for the big bang and life to begin and happen is God, the creator.
> 
> 
> 
> Says you. You are free to think that. But you kind of embarrass yourself when you demand others adopt your iron aged nonsense. And this has no place in the science section.
Click to expand...


It _is_ science as only the supernatural can start time and create the three dimensions of space.  Also, I discussed how all the energy the universe ever needed came to be.  With the scientific atheist explanation, it violates the laws of physics.  Why do you believe the latter?

ETA:  Here's what bugs me about singularity.  Even if I accept infinite temperature and infinite density (someone explained that our set of counting numbers, for example, is infinite), then where is the infinite heat (energy) required to do this?  Furthermore, we find intelligence behind the design of the universe, Earth, and everything in it.  How can such complexity just happen randomly?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

james bond said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> The _only_ way for the big bang and life to begin and happen is God, the creator.
> 
> 
> 
> Says you. You are free to think that. But you kind of embarrass yourself when you demand others adopt your iron aged nonsense. And this has no place in the science section.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It _is_ science as only the supernatural can start time and create the three dimensions of space.  Also, I discussed how all the energy the universe ever needed came to be.  With the scientific atheist explanation, it violates the laws of physics.  Why do you believe the latter?
Click to expand...

Please post these fantastical, childish claims in the religion section, where they belong.


----------



## james bond

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> The _only_ way for the big bang and life to begin and happen is God, the creator.
> 
> 
> 
> Says you. You are free to think that. But you kind of embarrass yourself when you demand others adopt your iron aged nonsense. And this has no place in the science section.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It _is_ science as only the supernatural can start time and create the three dimensions of space.  Also, I discussed how all the energy the universe ever needed came to be.  With the scientific atheist explanation, it violates the laws of physics.  Why do you believe the latter?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Please post these fantastical, childish claims in the religion section, where they belong.
Click to expand...


C'mon, you know I am right.  Your side has such unbelieveable and  incredulous claims.

ETA:  You can have GLASNOST, too .


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

james bond said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> The _only_ way for the big bang and life to begin and happen is God, the creator.
> 
> 
> 
> Says you. You are free to think that. But you kind of embarrass yourself when you demand others adopt your iron aged nonsense. And this has no place in the science section.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It _is_ science as only the supernatural can start time and create the three dimensions of space.  Also, I discussed how all the energy the universe ever needed came to be.  With the scientific atheist explanation, it violates the laws of physics.  Why do you believe the latter?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Please post these fantastical, childish claims in the religion section, where they belong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> C'mon, you know I am right.  Your side has such unbelieveable and  incredulous claims.
Click to expand...

Coming to the science section to mock and taunt will rightfully get you banned. please keep your magical nonsense in the religion section.


----------



## james bond

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> The _only_ way for the big bang and life to begin and happen is God, the creator.
> 
> 
> 
> Says you. You are free to think that. But you kind of embarrass yourself when you demand others adopt your iron aged nonsense. And this has no place in the science section.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It _is_ science as only the supernatural can start time and create the three dimensions of space.  Also, I discussed how all the energy the universe ever needed came to be.  With the scientific atheist explanation, it violates the laws of physics.  Why do you believe the latter?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Please post these fantastical, childish claims in the religion section, where they belong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> C'mon, you know I am right.  Your side has such unbelieveable and  incredulous claims.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Coming to the science section to mock and taunt will rightfully get you banned. please keep your magical nonsense in the religion section.
Click to expand...


Yet, the evidence of no abiogenesis  (proven by Dr. Louis Pasteur's experiment) and no intelligent aliens anywhere else proves your side has nothing but hypotheses.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

james bond said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> The _only_ way for the big bang and life to begin and happen is God, the creator.
> 
> 
> 
> Says you. You are free to think that. But you kind of embarrass yourself when you demand others adopt your iron aged nonsense. And this has no place in the science section.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It _is_ science as only the supernatural can start time and create the three dimensions of space.  Also, I discussed how all the energy the universe ever needed came to be.  With the scientific atheist explanation, it violates the laws of physics.  Why do you believe the latter?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Please post these fantastical, childish claims in the religion section, where they belong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> C'mon, you know I am right.  Your side has such unbelieveable and  incredulous claims.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Coming to the science section to mock and taunt will rightfully get you banned. please keep your magical nonsense in the religion section.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yet, the evidence of no abiogenesis  (proven by Dr. Louis Pasteur's experiment) and no intelligent aliens anywhere else proves your side has nothing but hypotheses.
Click to expand...

Abiogenesis is a forgone conclusion, like star formation. You misrepresent Pasteur, which has been explained to you in more detail than a liar like you deserves, many times. You could not possibly know that there are no intelligent aliens anywhere. You know this makes you a liar, but you do not care. Jihadists like yourself feel they have the divine moral authority to be shameless liars.


----------



## ReinyDays

james bond said:


> If you knew anything about God, then you'd know why you were made from the "dust of the Earth" and the breath of God.  The latter is why there is no abiogenesis nor alien life elsewhere.
> 
> 1) Uniqueness of man compared to his other living creations
> 2) We are lowly compared to God and dependent upon him
> 3) Yet, heaven on Earth was made for man to rule along with woman



Silicon dioxide ... get over yourself ...


----------



## ReinyDays

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> ... Jihadists like yourself feel they have the divine moral authority to be shameless liars.



Jihadists aren't liars ... they're pretty open about what they want ... 

James Bond is why children are to be silent among their elders ... just a lack of mature understanding ...


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

ReinyDays said:


> Jihadists aren't liars ... they're pretty open about what they want ...


Yes, but they think they have divine moral authority to shamelessly lie to get it. Like ISIS devils throwing people off of roofs for drug use and homosexuality, then taking methamphetamines and raping child sex slaves. All for Allah.


----------



## JoeB131

james bond said:


> Here is why there is no beginning of life for people like @JoeB131 . He believes in no God, creation, nor creation science that only life can create life. He believes in a fairy tale of abiogenesis or life from no life..



I believe that life is a chemical reaction, there's no need for a sky pixie.


----------



## ChemEngineer

[QUOTE="james bond, post: 26088034, member: 55937"

 and no intelligent aliens anywhere else proves your side has nothing but hypotheses.
[/QUOTE]

It's even worse. After decades of searching for radio transmissions around the universe, SETI has found NOTHING.  ZERO.   Hundreds of millions of dollars down the interstellar rathole.  Multiplying up asinine assumptions is as silly as it gets.


----------



## Hollie

ChemEngineer said:


> [QUOTE="james bond, post: 26088034, member: 55937"
> 
> and no intelligent aliens anywhere else proves your side has nothing but hypotheses.



It's even worse. After decades of searching for radio transmissions around the universe, SETI has found NOTHING.  ZERO.   Hundreds of millions of dollars down the interstellar rathole.  Multiplying up asinine assumptions is as silly as it gets.
[/QUOTE]
Yes, mere decades. In terms of the distances involved across space, decades represent a relatively short time. 

On the other hand, Christianity has had approx. 2,000 years of claims and suppositions for its gods and still nothing.


----------



## Hollie

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> ReinyDays said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jihadists aren't liars ... they're pretty open about what they want ...
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, but they think they have divine moral authority to shamelessly lie to get it. Like ISIS devils throwing people off of roofs for drug use and homosexuality, then taking methamphetamines and raping child sex slaves. All for Allah.
Click to expand...

That's a bit like the Catholic Church claiming moral authority while simultaneously managing a child sex abuse syndicate. All for Jesus.


----------



## james bond

JoeB131 said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is why there is no beginning of life for people like @JoeB131 . He believes in no God, creation, nor creation science that only life can create life. He believes in a fairy tale of abiogenesis or life from no life..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I believe that life is a chemical reaction, there's no need for a sky pixie.
Click to expand...


There is no chemical reaction that can create life because proteins (building block of life) can only be produced by life.  You saw that with the chicken coming before the egg using scientific methodology about ten years ago -- Chicken Came Before the Egg: "Scientific Proof".

Furthermore, there is no way to get from asymmetric reproduction to sexual reproduction.

It's you who believe in unscientific myths.


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ReinyDays said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jihadists aren't liars ... they're pretty open about what they want ...
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, but they think they have divine moral authority to shamelessly lie to get it. Like ISIS devils throwing people off of roofs for drug use and homosexuality, then taking methamphetamines and raping child sex slaves. All for Allah.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's a bit like the Catholic Church claiming moral authority while simultaneously managing a child sex abuse syndicate. All for Jesus.
Click to expand...


Prolly the atheists are worse.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Hollie said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ReinyDays said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jihadists aren't liars ... they're pretty open about what they want ...
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, but they think they have divine moral authority to shamelessly lie to get it. Like ISIS devils throwing people off of roofs for drug use and homosexuality, then taking methamphetamines and raping child sex slaves. All for Allah.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's a bit like the Catholic Church claiming moral authority while simultaneously managing a child sex abuse syndicate. All for Jesus.
Click to expand...

Indeed it is. More than a bit. And the suffering porn in Asia, with Mother Theresa at the forefront.


----------



## ReinyDays

james bond said:


> There is no chemical reaction that can create life because proteins (building block of life) can only be produced by life.  You saw that with the chicken coming before the egg using scientific methodology about ten years ago -- Chicken Came Before the Egg: "Scientific Proof".
> 
> Furthermore, there is no way to get from asymmetric reproduction to sexual reproduction.
> 
> It's you who believe in unscientific myths.



Yes ... there is ... shall we start with methane? ... or do I need to explain why carbon in common in the universe? ...


----------



## GLASNOST

Thunderbird said:


> GLASNOST said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why are people so stupid? Atheism has nothing to do with science. Read my lips .... Science does not disprove the existence of God but *Science most definitely DISPROVES THE BIBLE & the KORAN. *Is that really so difficult to understand?
> 
> 
> 
> Science does not disprove the Bible.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How was the Genesis Account of Creation Interpreted Before Darwin? - Common Question - BioLogos
> 
> 
> Many assume Darwin’s theory shook the foundations of Christianity, but the 6-day interpretation of Genesis was not the only view held by Christians prior to modern science.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> biologos.org
Click to expand...

So you believe that Maria was a virgin who never had sex with her husband and got pregnant by a ghost, the product of which died but came back to life and that some guy built a boat so large that it housed each and every animal on earth (no matter its origin) and that natural selection is a hoax and that you can wave a staff in front of your chest and cause the sea to part in the middle and then walk through it .... dry as a dino-bone. I could give you a hundred examples but I know very well that you are not listening and I've already wasted enough of my time.


----------



## GLASNOST

james bond said:


> GLASNOST said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> The facts are the universe, Earth, and everything in it are here.  That is evidence for God.  You're just too much an idiot to realize it.  You've been too stupefied by the other guy to realize it.  Good bye.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The facts are the universe, Earth, and everything in it that are here including plastic, harnessed atoms, television, the internal combustion engine, pyrotechnics, silly-cone titties, Botox lips, Pirelli p-zero225/40R18 92Y XL tyres, the MiG-31, Jerry Lee Lewis’ cousin,  jazz music, Dolly Parton’s defiance of gravity, the Holocaust, and the priapistic Khoisan penis is evidence that god may not exist. You’re just too much of a self-inflicted ignoramus to realize it. Hello!
> 
> View attachment 426551
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is too idiotic and stupid of a post that I can only repost my book for you.  The _only_ way for the big bang and life to begin and happen is God, the creator.
> 
> 
> View attachment 426696
> I'm glad that you're on the other side.
Click to expand...

 
That book, although extremely informative, is too broad for some of the world’s most deeply inflicted hence that publication does not apply. There are, luckily for you, a selection of personal aids written for individuals whose situation in life is dire. This one, for example ……


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ReinyDays said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jihadists aren't liars ... they're pretty open about what they want ...
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, but they think they have divine moral authority to shamelessly lie to get it. Like ISIS devils throwing people off of roofs for drug use and homosexuality, then taking methamphetamines and raping child sex slaves. All for Allah.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's a bit like the Catholic Church claiming moral authority while simultaneously managing a child sex abuse syndicate. All for Jesus.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Prolly the atheists are worse.
Click to expand...

Have you considered a scenario such that when your arguments amount to cutting and pasting cartoons, you don't belong at the grownup table?


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is why there is no beginning of life for people like @JoeB131 . He believes in no God, creation, nor creation science that only life can create life. He believes in a fairy tale of abiogenesis or life from no life..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I believe that life is a chemical reaction, there's no need for a sky pixie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no chemical reaction that can create life because proteins (building block of life) can only be produced by life.  You saw that with the chicken coming before the egg using scientific methodology about ten years ago -- Chicken Came Before the Egg: "Scientific Proof".
> 
> Furthermore, there is no way to get from asymmetric reproduction to sexual reproduction.
> 
> It's you who believe in unscientific myths.
Click to expand...

Wait, what? You linked to evilutionist, atheist scientists? How can that be when you consistently deride science that has moved beyond the 1850's?


----------



## james bond

GLASNOST said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GLASNOST said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> The facts are the universe, Earth, and everything in it are here.  That is evidence for God.  You're just too much an idiot to realize it.  You've been too stupefied by the other guy to realize it.  Good bye.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The facts are the universe, Earth, and everything in it that are here including plastic, harnessed atoms, television, the internal combustion engine, pyrotechnics, silly-cone titties, Botox lips, Pirelli p-zero225/40R18 92Y XL tyres, the MiG-31, Jerry Lee Lewis’ cousin,  jazz music, Dolly Parton’s defiance of gravity, the Holocaust, and the priapistic Khoisan penis is evidence that god may not exist. You’re just too much of a self-inflicted ignoramus to realize it. Hello!
> 
> View attachment 426551
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is too idiotic and stupid of a post that I can only repost my book for you.  The _only_ way for the big bang and life to begin and happen is God, the creator.
> 
> 
> View attachment 426696
> I'm glad that you're on the other side.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That book, although extremely informative, is too broad for some of the world’s most deeply inflicted hence that publication does not apply. There are, luckily for you, a selection of personal aids written for individuals whose situation in life is dire. This one, for example ……
> 
> View attachment 426833
Click to expand...


Nice.  GLASNOST one of the things people do on youtube to make themselves look knowledgeable is talk in front of their bookshelf.  It gives people something else to look at besides your talking head.  I can see you trying to explain what was there before the big bang and what did it expand into.





Furthermore, leave the animals alone.


----------



## JoeB131

james bond said:


> There is no chemical reaction that can create life because proteins (building block of life) can only be produced by life. You saw that with the chicken coming before the egg using scientific methodology about ten years ago



The Miller-Urey experiment showed otherwise... but never mind.


----------



## GLASNOST

james bond said:


> Nice. @GLASNOST.  I can see you trying to explain what was there before the big bang and what did it expand into.


Is it the imaginary antagonist inside your head again who's talking about the big bang now? Your fantasy dialogue gets worse by the day.


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> Wait, what? You linked to evilutionist, atheist scientists? How can that be when you consistently deride science that has moved beyond the 1850's?



Even _after_ the 1850s, the majority of scientists believed in an eternal universe while the creation scientists could only argue an eternal God created the eternal universe.  That all changed with the discovery of the CMB and the beginning of the universe.  Thus, came the big bang and later the fine tuning facts were found by the atheist scientists.  Not only do you have to explain fine tuning, you still have to explain what was there before the big bang and what did it expand into.  OTOH, the creationists gratefully received the fine tuning facts and developed the Kalam's Cosmological Argument.  We're still waiting for your science to explain.


----------



## JoeB131

james bond said:


> Even _after_ the 1850s, the majority of scientists believed in an eternal universe while the creation scientists could only argue an eternal God created the eternal universe. That all changed with the discovery of the CMB and the beginning of the universe. Thus, came the big bang and later the fine tuning facts were found by the atheist scientists. Not only do you have to explain fine tuning, you still have to explain what was there before the big bang and what did it expand into. OTOH, the creationists gratefully received the fine tuning facts and developed the Kalam's Cosmological Argument. We're still waiting for your science to explain.



Naw, guy, the problem here is that you are worshipping the "God of the Gaps"  The more we can explain, the less and less we can attribute to "God".


----------



## james bond

JoeB131 said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no chemical reaction that can create life because proteins (building block of life) can only be produced by life. You saw that with the chicken coming before the egg using scientific methodology about ten years ago
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Miller-Urey experiment showed otherwise... but never mind.
Click to expand...


It showed they were wrong about what gases were in the early universe.  Also, amino acids aren't proteins and can't randomly form proteins due to chirality.



JoeB131 said:


> Naw, guy, the problem here is that you are worshipping the "God of the Gaps" The more we can explain, the less and less we can attribute to "God".



You didn't watch the fine tuning video.  There aren't much gaps in the fine tuning parameters.  We should thank God as he is the best explanation per  Occam's Razor.  Otherwise, you would've created DNA, RNA, and protein by now.


----------



## JoeB131

james bond said:


> It showed they were wrong about what gases were in the early universe. Also, amino acids aren't proteins and can't randomly form proteins due to chirality.



Nobody said it was "random".   What you leave out is the factor of TIME.  given enough time, amino acids could combine to form proteins.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wait, what? You linked to evilutionist, atheist scientists? How can that be when you consistently deride science that has moved beyond the 1850's?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Even _after_ the 1850s, the majority of scientists believed in an eternal universe while the creation scientists could only argue an eternal God created the eternal universe.  That all changed with the discovery of the CMB and the beginning of the universe.  Thus, came the big bang and later the fine tuning facts were found by the atheist scientists.  Not only do you have to explain fine tuning, you still have to explain what was there before the big bang and what did it expand into.  OTOH, the creationists gratefully received the fine tuning facts and developed the Kalam's Cosmological Argument.  We're still waiting for your science to explain.
Click to expand...

You're a bit confused about what you're writing. You are attributing the nonsensical ''fine tuning'' facts and there no such facts. You insist on making bellicose claims about what ''atheist scientists" believe yet you offer only silly YouTube videos. 

Your ''fine tuning'' claims presume the existence of the Christian gods and you have offered nothing to support the existence of those gods.  "Fine tuning'' of the universe is not acknowledged by the relevant science community as it applies to the actions of your particular gods. It‘s a rather desperate tactic to attempt to impose your religious beliefs on others. I should point out the absurdity in your “fine tuning” meme when you acknowledge collisions of galaxies. “Fine tuning” would not suggest collisions of galaxies or meteor / asteroid strikes of this planet.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no chemical reaction that can create life because proteins (building block of life) can only be produced by life. You saw that with the chicken coming before the egg using scientific methodology about ten years ago
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Miller-Urey experiment showed otherwise... but never mind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It showed they were wrong about what gases were in the early universe.  Also, amino acids aren't proteins and can't randomly form proteins due to chirality.
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Naw, guy, the problem here is that you are worshipping the "God of the Gaps" The more we can explain, the less and less we can attribute to "God".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You didn't watch the fine tuning video.  There aren't much gaps in the fine tuning parameters.  We should thank God as he is the best explanation per  Occam's Razor.  Otherwise, you would've created DNA, RNA, and protein by now.
Click to expand...

Your silly ''fine tuning'' video is produced by a creation ministry.





__





						Fine Tuning | Reasonable Faith
					






					www.reasonablefaith.org
				




The bias and false claims are to be expected from a religious cult.


----------



## GLASNOST

JoeB131 said:


> Naw, guy, the problem here is that you are worshipping the "God of the Gaps" ....


Or the "World According to Garp".


----------



## Grumblenuts

james bond said:


> We should thank God as he is the best explanation per Occam's Razor.


The most magical, convenient, lower brain satisfying, cheap explanation _simply must_ be the right one. Goddidit! Thank's Occam's Razor 








> “Most people jump to conclusions, but more delusion-prone individuals ‘jump further,’” wrote the authors in their conclusion.
> 
> Delusions (that are not due to a medical condition or substance abuse) may seem believable at face value, and delusional people may appear normal as long as you don’t touch upon their delusional themes, _Psychology Today_ states. According to the DSM–IV–TR, "delusional conviction occurs on a continuum and can sometimes be inferred from an individual’s behavior." These are contemporary perspectives, but they are rooted in the work of Karl Jaspers, a German psychiatrist and philosopher, who believed delusions to be distinct from normal beliefs. Delusions are “impervious to counterargument,” he argued, because such a change in “belief fixation” amounted to “an alteration of the personality.” His criteria for true delusion were:
> 
> 
> certainty (held with absolute conviction)
> incorrigibility (not changeable by compelling counterargument or proof to the contrary)
> impossibility or falsity of content (implausible, bizarre or patently untrue).


----------



## GLASNOST

The true explanation of life is found in the Holy Bible, the _“fine tuning” _of which is found here …..


----------



## Thunderbird

GLASNOST said:


> Thunderbird said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GLASNOST said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why are people so stupid? Atheism has nothing to do with science. Read my lips .... Science does not disprove the existence of God but *Science most definitely DISPROVES THE BIBLE & the KORAN. *Is that really so difficult to understand?
> 
> 
> 
> Science does not disprove the Bible.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How was the Genesis Account of Creation Interpreted Before Darwin? - Common Question - BioLogos
> 
> 
> Many assume Darwin’s theory shook the foundations of Christianity, but the 6-day interpretation of Genesis was not the only view held by Christians prior to modern science.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> biologos.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you believe that Maria was a virgin who never had sex with her husband and got pregnant by a ghost, the product of which died but came back to life and that some guy built a boat so large that it housed each and every animal on earth (no matter its origin) and that natural selection is a hoax and that you can wave a staff in front of your chest and cause the sea to part in the middle and then walk through it .... dry as a dino-bone. I could give you a hundred examples but I know very well that you are not listening and I've already wasted enough of my time.
Click to expand...

Why don’t you read the article I linked to and stop talking nonsense.


----------



## james bond

JoeB131 said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> It showed they were wrong about what gases were in the early universe. Also, amino acids aren't proteins and can't randomly form proteins due to chirality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody said it was "random".   What you leave out is the factor of TIME.  given enough time, amino acids could combine to form proteins.
Click to expand...


Your science is outdated and can't distinguish between amino acids and proteins.  Miller-Urey was wrong about the primal gases in the universe.  If they were right about the gases, then the amino acids would not have formed.  The experiment produced amino acids, but even with _billions of years_ Miller-Urey's experiment nor any experiment would be able to form these amino acids into proteins due to chirality.  There are plenty of amino acids floating in space, but they cannot form proteins outside the cell.  That's why only life can create other life.  Otherwise, the swan neck flask experiment would have created bacteria just from the broth mix.  That went over your head, too, as the already living bacteria in the air was trapped by the swan neck.


----------



## ReinyDays

Unable to learn ... I hope the schools pick this up and get him the extra services he needs ...

Chirality has nothing to do with the poly-peptide bond ...


----------



## GLASNOST

Thunderbird said:


> GLASNOST said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thunderbird said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GLASNOST said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why are people so stupid? Atheism has nothing to do with science. Read my lips .... Science does not disprove the existence of God but *Science most definitely DISPROVES THE BIBLE & the KORAN. *Is that really so difficult to understand?
> 
> 
> 
> Science does not disprove the Bible.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How was the Genesis Account of Creation Interpreted Before Darwin? - Common Question - BioLogos
> 
> 
> Many assume Darwin’s theory shook the foundations of Christianity, but the 6-day interpretation of Genesis was not the only view held by Christians prior to modern science.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> biologos.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you believe that Maria was a virgin who never had sex with her husband and got pregnant by a ghost, the product of which died but came back to life and that some guy built a boat so large that it housed each and every animal on earth (no matter its origin) and that natural selection is a hoax and that you can wave a staff in front of your chest and cause the sea to part in the middle and then walk through it .... dry as a dino-bone. I could give you a hundred examples but I know very well that you are not listening and I've already wasted enough of my time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why don’t you read the article I linked to and stop talking nonsense.
Click to expand...

There's no point in it. I said that science has disproved the Bible. You say no. I have given you a shortlist of biblical nonsense that science has disproved. Is there any reason for me to read about what science might not have disproved? If you think Christianity allows you to _*"pick & chose"*_ then you'd be very wrong. You're one of those _*"yeah, but"*_ sort of persons. It is impossible for a woman to get pregnant without sperm. But I suppose you'll reply with something ridiculous like, _"Yeah, but science has not disproved the historical fact that Jesus did exist" _as if that gives any credence to Maria getting pregnant by _Force Majeure_.


----------



## james bond

Grumblenuts said:


> The most magical, convenient, lower brain satisfying, cheap explanation _simply must_ be the right one. Goddidit! Thank's Occam's Razor



God doesn't take billions of years which no scientific method can verify.  Instead, science verifies creationism such as the chicken before the egg and fine tuning facts.  Moreover, nobody can answer my question about what was there before the big bang and what did it expand into?  The creationists also provided the KCA while atheists have nothing.  From Genesis, we know God created space, energy (light), heavens, and Earth first and the set time off later.

Thus, it's the atheist and their scientists who depend on quantum particles (which require space) or some magic that violates the laws of physics such as cosmic inflation.


----------



## ReinyDays

james bond said:


> From Genesis, we know God created space, energy (light), heavens, and Earth first and the set time off later.



No ... that's not what the Bible says ... "In the beginning, God created Heaven and Earth" ... nothing about space, temperature, infinitives, atoms, force, chirality ... you assume much of God's plan for us ... the highly soul is blind to the truth ...


----------



## james bond

Here's another question.  What can we visibly see of quantum mechanics, Darwinism, and ToE?  I think we understand the light is a wave and even a light particle acts as a wave until it is observed.  But where did the light (energy) come from?


----------



## ReinyDays

james bond said:


> Here's another question.  What can we visibly see of quantum mechanics, Darwinism, and ToE?  I think we understand the light is a wave and even a light particle acts as a wave until it is observed.  But where did the light (energy) come from?



Why are you ignoring the people willing to answer these questions? ... ha ha ... do you want the answers or not? ...

Someone quote me so he has to see this ... what a maroon ...


----------



## james bond

ReinyDays said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> From Genesis, we know God created space, energy (light), heavens, and Earth first and the set time off later.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No ... that's not what the Bible says ... "In the beginning, God created Heaven and Earth" ... nothing about space, temperature, infinitives, atoms, force, chirality ... you assume much of God's plan for us ... the highly soul is blind to the truth ...
Click to expand...


You are so wrong.  Let's review.

"The Creation of the World

1 In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. 2 The earth was without form and void, and darkness was over the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters.

3 And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. 4 And God saw that the light was good. And God separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, the first day."

For the dark sky and Earth, one needs to have space.  He created the EMS (energy) for the universe.  This implies he created atoms.  I didn't even mention temperature and the rest, but we have to look at the rest to see what was created the first day.  People generally do not know about atoms, force, chirality, etc., so we have to figure out what else was created for the first day.  He used visible light to separate the day part and dark part as night.  I don't think he started time until he created the day and night and then we have the first day (if you interpret the day as 24-hours).


----------



## james bond

ReinyDays said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's another question.  What can we visibly see of quantum mechanics, Darwinism, and ToE?  I think we understand the light is a wave and even a light particle acts as a wave until it is observed.  But where did the light (energy) come from?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why are you ignoring the people willing to answer these questions? ... ha ha ... do you want the answers or not? ...
> 
> Someone quote me so he has to see this ... what a maroon ...
Click to expand...


You had your chances already, but nothing.  And why do you direct it to me?  Why not someone else?


----------



## danielpalos

james bond said:


> Here's another question.  What can we visibly see of quantum mechanics, Darwinism, and ToE?  I think we understand the light is a wave and even a light particle acts as a wave until it is observed.  But where did the light (energy) come from?


Any given, light emitting body such as stars?


----------



## danielpalos

james bond said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> The most magical, convenient, lower brain satisfying, cheap explanation _simply must_ be the right one. Goddidit! Thank's Occam's Razor
> 
> 
> 
> 
> God doesn't take billions of years which no scientific method can verify.  Instead, science verifies creationism such as the chicken before the egg and fine tuning facts.  Moreover, nobody can answer my question about what was there before the big bang and what did it expand into?  The creationists also provided the KCA while atheists have nothing.  From Genesis, we know God created space, energy (light), heavens, and Earth first and the set time off later.
> 
> Thus, it's the atheist and their scientists who depend on quantum particles (which require space) or some magic that violates the laws of physics such as cosmic inflation.
Click to expand...

Some geologists claim the surface (crust) of the Earth could be "recycled" in around five hundred million years; it is one reason why we may not be able to find prehistoric civilizations that may have existed on Earth.


----------



## ReinyDays

james bond said:


> You are so wrong.  Let's review.
> 
> "The Creation of the World
> 
> 1 In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. 2 The earth was without form and void, and darkness was over the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters.
> 
> 3 And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. 4 And God saw that the light was good. And God separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, the first day."
> 
> For the dark sky and Earth, one needs to have space.  He created the EMS (energy) for the universe.  This implies he created atoms.  I didn't even mention temperature and the rest, but we have to look at the rest to see what was created the first day.  People generally do not know about atoms, force, chirality, etc., so we have to figure out what else was created for the first day.  He used visible light to separate the day part and dark part as night.  I don't think he started time until he created the day and night and then we have the first day (if you interpret the day as 24-hours).



These are all inferences ... and are only your own interpretations of scripture ... you assume God was *imperfect* when He caused these passages to be written ... that's an extremely dangerous path you take ... essentially, you're calling God a liar ... why not add Taylor Swift to what God created on the first day? ... or how about evolution? ... if you open the door to imply whatever we want, we'll complete miss what God is instructing us on ... if God wanted us to see ourselves as a collection of atoms, He would have said "you are a collection of atoms" ... 

We are our brother's keeper ... attend first to that which is explicit ... you may find we need not imply anything ... that indeed, the Bible was written perfectly ...


----------



## ReinyDays

james bond said:


> You had your chances already, but nothing.  And why do you direct it to me?  Why not someone else?



You're the one claiming these chemical reactions are impossible ... and refuse to listen to anyone who can explain otherwise ... shall we start with methane? ...


----------



## ReinyDays

danielpalos said:


> Some geologists claim the surface (crust) of the Earth could be "recycled" in around five hundred million years; it is one reason why we may not be able to find prehistoric civilizations that may have existed on Earth.



Oceanic crust material is recycled ... continent crust materials are not (generally) ... the Canadian Shield and Western Australia are considered over 4 billion years old ...


----------



## danielpalos

ReinyDays said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Some geologists claim the surface (crust) of the Earth could be "recycled" in around five hundred million years; it is one reason why we may not be able to find prehistoric civilizations that may have existed on Earth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oceanic crust material is recycled ... continent crust materials are not (generally) ... the Canadian Shield and Western Australia are considered over 4 billion years old ...
Click to expand...

I agree to disagree.  From the literature I have consumed, even the crust is recycled through normal plate tectonics and volcanic activity, along with ice ages and temperate ages.


----------



## james bond

danielpalos said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's another question.  What can we visibly see of quantum mechanics, Darwinism, and ToE?  I think we understand the light is a wave and even a light particle acts as a wave until it is observed.  But where did the light (energy) come from?
> 
> 
> 
> Any given, light emitting body such as stars?
Click to expand...


All of it would fall under EMS.  Even quantum particles:

"
Subatomic particles are either "elementary", i.e. not made of multiple other particles, or "composite" and made of more than one elementary particle bound together.

The elementary particles of the Standard Model are:[7]


Six "flavors" of quarks: up, down, strange, charm, bottom, and top;
Six types of leptons: electron, electron neutrino, muon, muon neutrino, tau, tau neutrino;
Twelve gauge bosons (force carriers): the photon of electromagnetism, the three W and Z bosons of the weak force, and the eight gluons of the strong force;
The Higgs boson.



The Standard Model classification of particles
All of these have now been discovered by experiments, with the latest being the top quark (1995), tau neutrino (2000), and Higgs boson (2012).

Various extensions of the Standard Model predict the existence of an elementary graviton particle and many other elementary particles, but none have been discovered as of 2020."


danielpalos said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> The most magical, convenient, lower brain satisfying, cheap explanation _simply must_ be the right one. Goddidit! Thank's Occam's Razor
> 
> 
> 
> 
> God doesn't take billions of years which no scientific method can verify.  Instead, science verifies creationism such as the chicken before the egg and fine tuning facts.  Moreover, nobody can answer my question about what was there before the big bang and what did it expand into?  The creationists also provided the KCA while atheists have nothing.  From Genesis, we know God created space, energy (light), heavens, and Earth first and the set time off later.
> 
> Thus, it's the atheist and their scientists who depend on quantum particles (which require space) or some magic that violates the laws of physics such as cosmic inflation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Some geologists claim the surface (crust) of the Earth could be "recycled" in around five hundred million years; it is one reason why we may not be able to find prehistoric civilizations that may have existed on Earth.
Click to expand...


I have no idea of what five hundred million years would be like.  I would think these geologists are basing their hypotheses on scientific atheism, a religion.


----------



## james bond

ReinyDays said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> You had your chances already, but nothing.  And why do you direct it to me?  Why not someone else?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're the one claiming these chemical reactions are impossible ... and refuse to listen to anyone who can explain otherwise ... shall we start with methane? ...
Click to expand...


I don't think anyone else here knows what you are talking about.  If what you have is true, then you could explain it to anybody, not just me.

I used creation science to explain the truth to everybody here.  Thus, what you have is most likely a lie unless you have the scientific method to back it up.


----------



## ReinyDays

danielpalos said:


> I agree to disagree.  From the literature I have consumed, even the crust is recycled through normal plate tectonics and volcanic activity, along with ice ages and temperate ages.



It certainly can be ... but generally what geologists are referring to is the process of new oceanic crust being extruded out of mid-ocean ridges and subsumed in subduction zones ... a "conveyor belt" of sorts for the ocean bottom ... the Juan de Fuca plate is an excellent example ... the material arises along the Juan de Fuca ridge off-shore and is then overridden by the North American plate along the Cascadia fault ... pushing the oceanic material back down, and the continental material stays on top ... 

Typically, but not always ... although I can't think of an example of continental material subducting, that doesn't mean it's not possible ...


----------



## ReinyDays

james bond said:


> I don't think anyone else here knows what you are talking about.  If what you have is true, then you could explain it to anybody, not just me.
> I used creation science to explain the truth to everybody here.  Thus, what you have is most likely a lie unless you have the scientific method to back it up.



Easy peasy ... fill a vessel with pure methane ... wait a year ... there will be ethane in the vessel where there was no ethane before ... do you agree? ...


----------



## danielpalos

ReinyDays said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> I agree to disagree.  From the literature I have consumed, even the crust is recycled through normal plate tectonics and volcanic activity, along with ice ages and temperate ages.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It certainly can be ... but generally what geologists are referring to is the process of new oceanic crust being extruded out of mid-ocean ridges and subsumed in subduction zones ... a "conveyor belt" of sorts for the ocean bottom ... the Juan de Fuca plate is an excellent example ... the material arises along the Juan de Fuca ridge off-shore and is then overridden by the North American plate along the Cascadia fault ... pushing the oceanic material back down, and the continental material stays on top ...
> 
> Typically, but not always ... although I can't think of an example of continental material subducting, that doesn't mean it's not possible ...
Click to expand...

If an advanced civilization existed when Pangea was a big continent, would we have any evidence of it today?


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's another question.  What can we visibly see of quantum mechanics, Darwinism, and ToE?  I think we understand the light is a wave and even a light particle acts as a wave until it is observed.  But where did the light (energy) come from?
> 
> 
> 
> Any given, light emitting body such as stars?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All of it would fall under EMS.  Even quantum particles:
> 
> "
> Subatomic particles are either "elementary", i.e. not made of multiple other particles, or "composite" and made of more than one elementary particle bound together.
> 
> The elementary particles of the Standard Model are:[7]
> 
> 
> Six "flavors" of quarks: up, down, strange, charm, bottom, and top;
> Six types of leptons: electron, electron neutrino, muon, muon neutrino, tau, tau neutrino;
> Twelve gauge bosons (force carriers): the photon of electromagnetism, the three W and Z bosons of the weak force, and the eight gluons of the strong force;
> The Higgs boson.
> 
> 
> 
> The Standard Model classification of particles
> All of these have now been discovered by experiments, with the latest being the top quark (1995), tau neutrino (2000), and Higgs boson (2012).
> 
> Various extensions of the Standard Model predict the existence of an elementary graviton particle and many other elementary particles, but none have been discovered as of 2020."
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> The most magical, convenient, lower brain satisfying, cheap explanation _simply must_ be the right one. Goddidit! Thank's Occam's Razor
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> God doesn't take billions of years which no scientific method can verify.  Instead, science verifies creationism such as the chicken before the egg and fine tuning facts.  Moreover, nobody can answer my question about what was there before the big bang and what did it expand into?  The creationists also provided the KCA while atheists have nothing.  From Genesis, we know God created space, energy (light), heavens, and Earth first and the set time off later.
> 
> Thus, it's the atheist and their scientists who depend on quantum particles (which require space) or some magic that violates the laws of physics such as cosmic inflation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Some geologists claim the surface (crust) of the Earth could be "recycled" in around five hundred million years; it is one reason why we may not be able to find prehistoric civilizations that may have existed on Earth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have no idea of what five hundred million years would be like.  I would think these geologists are basing their hypotheses on scientific atheism, a religion.
Click to expand...


Why reference work performed by evilutionist atheist scientists when you insist they must be wrong?


----------



## ReinyDays

danielpalos said:


> If an advanced civilization existed when Pangea was a big continent, would we have any evidence of it today?



How advanced and how wide spread? ... a small population of proto-veloraptors using rocks to beak up clams? ... probably not anything we could identify as evidence ... or wide use of refined iron? ... that would be abundant ... 

We find fossils of the same type of critter in both Africa and South America ... so the lands these are found on are not being subducted ... and zicron studies in the Canadina Shield show an age of over 4 billion years ... 

It's an issue of density ... the lighter frothier materials will float on top while the heavier materials sink down underneath ...


----------



## Grumblenuts

"frothier" <-- a delicious word.


Hollie said:


> Why reference work performed by evilutionist atheist scientists when you insist they must be wrong?


And here I love science and have deduced the "Standard Model" to be fantasy akin to Bible thumping for at least a decade now. Go figure. Irony seemingly knows no bounds.


----------



## Grumblenuts

danielpalos said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> The most magical, convenient, lower brain satisfying, cheap explanation _simply must_ be the right one. Goddidit! Thank's Occam's Razor
> 
> 
> 
> 
> God doesn't take billions of years which no scientific method can verify.  Instead, science verifies creationism such as the chicken before the egg and fine tuning facts.  Moreover, nobody can answer my question about what was there before the big bang and what did it expand into?  The creationists also provided the KCA while atheists have nothing.  From Genesis, we know God created space, energy (light), heavens, and Earth first and the set time off later.
> 
> Thus, it's the atheist and their scientists who depend on quantum particles (which require space) or some magic that violates the laws of physics such as cosmic inflation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Some geologists claim the surface (crust) of the Earth could be "recycled" in around five hundred million years; it is one reason why we may not be able to find prehistoric civilizations that may have existed on Earth.
Click to expand...

The irony there being "could be" not at all implying likelihood, i.e. Occam's Razor. Being possible doesn't mean a thing necessarily occurs (within a reasonable time range). Who said "If there is a wrong way to do something, then someone will do it"? Could it have been God? Conversely, if abiogenesis could occur (given organic compounds, sunlight, and millions of years), then no one need "do it."


----------



## Grumblenuts

Corollarially, a word I'm just now coining if no one else has, then given:

"light" - an "Aether", i.e. a mathematical, geometric, probabilistic, field, "medium", or "firmament" (not some ridiculous "dome", "wave", or "particle")
A true "void" - no "waters" to hover above or any such silliness
A universe can exist
It will. Plan or no plan. Like it or not.


----------



## JoeB131

james bond said:


> Your science is outdated and can't distinguish between amino acids and proteins. Miller-Urey was wrong about the primal gases in the universe. If they were right about the gases, then the amino acids would not have formed. The experiment produced amino acids, but even with _billions of years_ Miller-Urey's experiment nor any experiment would be able to form these amino acids into proteins due to chirality. There are plenty of amino acids floating in space, but they cannot form proteins outside the cell. That's why only life can create other life. Otherwise, the swan neck flask experiment would have created bacteria just from the broth mix. That went over your head, too, as the already living bacteria in the air was trapped by the swan neck.



Actually, that just shows creationists don't know how labs work. 

Miller-Urey established that amino acids can form naturally.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

danielpalos said:


> ReinyDays said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> I agree to disagree.  From the literature I have consumed, even the crust is recycled through normal plate tectonics and volcanic activity, along with ice ages and temperate ages.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It certainly can be ... but generally what geologists are referring to is the process of new oceanic crust being extruded out of mid-ocean ridges and subsumed in subduction zones ... a "conveyor belt" of sorts for the ocean bottom ... the Juan de Fuca plate is an excellent example ... the material arises along the Juan de Fuca ridge off-shore and is then overridden by the North American plate along the Cascadia fault ... pushing the oceanic material back down, and the continental material stays on top ...
> 
> Typically, but not always ... although I can't think of an example of continental material subducting, that doesn't mean it's not possible ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If an advanced civilization existed when Pangea was a big continent, would we have any evidence of it today?
Click to expand...

Yes of course, because the closely related species would show up in the fossil record. That is one way we know this ancient civilization stuff is nonsense.


----------



## james bond

JoeB131 said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your science is outdated and can't distinguish between amino acids and proteins. Miller-Urey was wrong about the primal gases in the universe. If they were right about the gases, then the amino acids would not have formed. The experiment produced amino acids, but even with _billions of years_ Miller-Urey's experiment nor any experiment would be able to form these amino acids into proteins due to chirality. There are plenty of amino acids floating in space, but they cannot form proteins outside the cell. That's why only life can create other life. Otherwise, the swan neck flask experiment would have created bacteria just from the broth mix. That went over your head, too, as the already living bacteria in the air was trapped by the swan neck.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, that just shows creationists don't know how labs work.
> 
> Miller-Urey established that amino acids can form naturally.
Click to expand...


You freakin' idiot.  I just told you that there are plenty of amino acids out there in outer space.  Now, what important part did you stupidly miss?

Never mind.

This may as well be you in front of the judge.







You better throw yourself on the mercy of the court.


----------



## Grumblenuts

JoeB131 said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your science is outdated and can't distinguish between amino acids and proteins. Miller-Urey was wrong about the primal gases in the universe. If they were right about the gases, then the amino acids would not have formed. The experiment produced amino acids, but even with _billions of years_ Miller-Urey's experiment nor any experiment would be able to form these amino acids into proteins due to chirality. There are plenty of amino acids floating in space, but they cannot form proteins outside the cell. That's why only life can create other life. Otherwise, the swan neck flask experiment would have created bacteria just from the broth mix. That went over your head, too, as the already living bacteria in the air was trapped by the swan neck.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, that just shows creationists don't know how labs work.
> 
> Miller-Urey established that amino acids can form naturally.
Click to expand...

Indeed, not to mention inspiring "an entirely new field of study" :


> The experiment was a success in that amino acids, the building blocks of life, were produced during the simulation. The finding was so significant that it kick-started an entirely new field of study: Prebiotic Chemistry.
> 
> Scientists now have reason to believe that the gases used in the Miller-Urey simulation were not actually the same as those of the ancient atmosphere. Because of this, many experiments have since been done, testing a wide variety of atmospheres and different environmental conditions. The results are overwhelming: the molecules of life can form under a wide variety of ancient Earth-like conditions.
> 
> Many questions about the origin of life remain to be answered but these findings give strong support to the idea that the first living cells on Earth may have emerged from natural chemical reactions.


----------



## ReinyDays

james bond said:


> I just told you that there are plenty of amino acids out there in outer space.  Now, what important part did you stupidly miss?



The part about non-chiral amino acids never linking together into proteins outside living cells ... glycine for example ... there is a natural affinity between amino groups and organic acid groups ... they readily bond no matter the chirality ...


----------



## james bond




----------



## ReinyDays

Cartoon science ...


----------



## JoeB131

james bond said:


> You freakin' idiot. I just told you that there are plenty of amino acids out there in outer space. Now, what important part did you stupidly miss?
> 
> Never mind.
> 
> This may as well be you in front of the judge.



Wow, yes, you want God to burn people because they don't agree with your fairy tales.    You see, this is why I don't believe in Yahweh.  To paraphrase Jean-Luc Picard, I refuse to believe the universe is this badly designed.


----------



## james bond

JoeB131 said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> You freakin' idiot. I just told you that there are plenty of amino acids out there in outer space. Now, what important part did you stupidly miss?
> 
> Never mind.
> 
> This may as well be you in front of the judge.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, yes, you want God to burn people because they don't agree with your fairy tales.    You see, this is why I don't believe in Yahweh.  To paraphrase Jean-Luc Picard, I refuse to believe the universe is this badly designed.
> 
> View attachment 427301
Click to expand...







I never said I wanted people to burn.  It's people who do it to themselves like you are doing.  Notice the this is fine dog accepted his fate until it was too late and he felt the burn.  People were given free will and can decide for themselves whether to believe in Jesus as Savior and repent for their sins.

If you look at the science it's creation science, i.e. real science vs. the fake science of evolutionary thinking and cosmology.

Strengths of creationist's arguments:  Science backs up Book of Genesis, origins of universe and life on Earth
Weakness of creationist's arguments:  Age of Earth as 6,000 years (radiocarbon dating), people don't believe other Bible stories

Strengths of evolutionist's arguments:  Long time (radiometric dating), microevolution or evolution by natural selection
Weakness of evolutionist's arguments:  Unclear origin of universe and life, no hard evidence for macroevolution or evolution by mutation

++++++++

The studio built this sign for their movie and were filming while I was growing up in San Francisco.  I didn't think about the significance until watching again decades later.  It wasn't considered neo noir until decades later.  I suppose it's one of the reasons why it's considered _neo noir_.


----------



## ReinyDays

james bond said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> You freakin' idiot. I just told you that there are plenty of amino acids out there in outer space. Now, what important part did you stupidly miss?
> 
> Never mind.
> 
> This may as well be you in front of the judge.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, yes, you want God to burn people because they don't agree with your fairy tales.    You see, this is why I don't believe in Yahweh.  To paraphrase Jean-Luc Picard, I refuse to believe the universe is this badly designed.
> 
> View attachment 427301
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I never said I wanted people to burn.  It's people who do it to themselves like you are doing.  Notice the this is fine dog accepted his fate until it was too late and he felt the burn.  People were given free will and can decide for themselves whether to believe in Jesus as Savior and repent for their sins.
> 
> If you look at the science it's creation science, i.e. real science vs. the fake science of evolutionary thinking and cosmology.
> 
> Strengths of creationist's arguments:  Science backs up Book of Genesis, origins of universe and life on Earth
> Weakness of creationist's arguments:  Age of Earth as 6,000 years (radiocarbon dating), people don't believe other Bible stories
> 
> Strengths of evolutionist's arguments:  Long time (radiometric dating), microevolution or evolution by natural selection
> Weakness of evolutionist's arguments:  Unclear origin of universe and life, no hard evidence for macroevolution or evolution by mutation
> 
> ++++++++
> 
> The studio built this sign for their movie and were filming while I was growing up in San Francisco.  I didn't think about the significance until watching again decades later.  It wasn't considered neo noir until decades later.  I suppose it's one of the reasons why it's considered _neo noir_.
Click to expand...


I guess I'm on ignore again ... the biggest weakness to Creation Science is the refusal to learn ... what's set is set never to be changed ... as long as we refuse to understand science, we can always claim it is unclear ... deaf to the Word ... blind to the world about us ... tongues wagging hypocrisy ...


----------



## james bond

ReinyDays said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> You freakin' idiot. I just told you that there are plenty of amino acids out there in outer space. Now, what important part did you stupidly miss?
> 
> Never mind.
> 
> This may as well be you in front of the judge.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, yes, you want God to burn people because they don't agree with your fairy tales.    You see, this is why I don't believe in Yahweh.  To paraphrase Jean-Luc Picard, I refuse to believe the universe is this badly designed.
> 
> View attachment 427301
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I never said I wanted people to burn.  It's people who do it to themselves like you are doing.  Notice the this is fine dog accepted his fate until it was too late and he felt the burn.  People were given free will and can decide for themselves whether to believe in Jesus as Savior and repent for their sins.
> 
> If you look at the science it's creation science, i.e. real science vs. the fake science of evolutionary thinking and cosmology.
> 
> Strengths of creationist's arguments:  Science backs up Book of Genesis, origins of universe and life on Earth
> Weakness of creationist's arguments:  Age of Earth as 6,000 years (radiocarbon dating), people don't believe other Bible stories
> 
> Strengths of evolutionist's arguments:  Long time (radiometric dating), microevolution or evolution by natural selection
> Weakness of evolutionist's arguments:  Unclear origin of universe and life, no hard evidence for macroevolution or evolution by mutation
> 
> ++++++++
> 
> The studio built this sign for their movie and were filming while I was growing up in San Francisco.  I didn't think about the significance until watching again decades later.  It wasn't considered neo noir until decades later.  I suppose it's one of the reasons why it's considered _neo noir_.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I guess I'm on ignore again ... the biggest weakness to Creation Science is the refusal to learn ... what's set is set never to be changed ... as long as we refuse to understand science, we can always claim it is unclear ... deaf to the Word ... blind to the world about us ... tongues wagging hypocrisy ...
Click to expand...


Haha.  It's ReinyDays refusal to learn.  For example, you can't talk to posters here in general.  I gave you your chance, but it has to be for me because it's so stupid.  You are the perfect this is fine dog.

Instead, we have the evidence for a young Earth based on rapidly decaying magnetic field, soft tissue in fossils, bent rock layers, and others which I have discussed without a cretin like you necessary.  That would be a simple crushing blow for evolution, but it's not taught allowed to be taught in public schools.


----------



## ReinyDays

james bond said:


> Haha.  It's ReinyDays refusal to learn.  For example, you can't talk to posters here in general.  I gave you your chance, but it has to be for me because it's so stupid.  You are the perfect this is fine dog.
> 
> Instead, we have the evidence for a young Earth based on rapidly decaying magnetic field, soft tissue in fossils, bent rock layers, and others which I have discussed without a cretin like you necessary.  That would be a simple crushing blow for evolution, but it's not taught allowed to be taught in public schools.



I asked if you agreed that methane can form ethane ... you have yet to answer ... 2 CH4 -> C2H6 + H2 ... thus you ignore me, which seems to be the basis of your belief in CS ... instead plug your ears and scream "nah nah nah ... I can't hear you" ...

Maybe you should wait until you finish public school before you judge what's taught and what's not taught ... grew up in San Francisco?, that's a K-14 education system ... no excuse for you not having two years college education ... it was free to all ...


----------



## Grumblenuts

Some interesting, seldom "taught" facts about Clint Eastwood (including distinctions between gun enthusiasm and gun nuttery):


> Spiritual beliefs
> In 1973, Eastwood told the film critic Gene Siskel, "No, I don't believe in God."[353] Eastwood has said that he finds spirituality in nature (as suggested by his Western, Pale Rider, 1985), stating that "I was born during the Depression and I was brought up with no specific church. We moved every four or five months during the first 14 years of my life, so I was sent to a different church depending on wherever we lived. Most of them were Protestant, but I went to other churches because my parents wanted me to try to figure out things for myself. They always said, 'I just want to expose you to some religious order and see if that's something you like'. So although my religious training was not really specific, I do feel spiritual things. If I stand on the side of the Grand Canyon and look down, it moves me in some way."[354]
> 
> "Of course, it would be wonderful to talk with my parents again, who are, of course, deceased. It makes the idea of death much less scary. But then again, if you think that nothing happens after you die, maybe it makes you live life better. Maybe you're supposed to do the best you can by the gift you're given of life and that alone."[354]





> Views on gun control[edit]
> Despite being both a gun enthusiast[25] and heavily associated with firearms in his Westerns and police movies, Eastwood has publicly endorsed gun control since at least 1973. In the April 24, 1973, edition of The Washington Post, the star said, "I'm for gun legislation myself. I don't hunt."[26] Two years later, in 1975, Eastwood told People magazine that he favors "gun control to some degree."[27] About a year later, Eastwood remarked that "All guns should be registered. I don't think legitimate gun owners would mind that kind of legislation. Right now the furor against a gun law is by gun owners who are overreacting. They're worried that all guns are going to be recalled. It's impossible to take guns out of circulation, and that's why firearms should be registered and mail-order delivery of guns halted."[28] In 1993, he noted that he "...was always a backer" of the Brady Bill, with its federally mandated waiting period.[29] In 1995, Eastwood questioned the purpose of assault weapons. Larry King, the television host and newspaper columnist, wrote in the May 22, 1995, edition of USA Today that "my interview with Eastwood will air on 'Larry King Weekend' ... I asked him his thoughts on the NRA and gun control and he said that while people think of him as pro-gun, he has always been in favor of controls. 'Why would anyone need or want an assault weapon?' he said."[30]


----------



## Grumblenuts

ReinyDays said:


> Cartoon science ...


Hollywood world...


----------



## ReinyDays

"Assault weapons" are great varmint rifles ... small bore, medium charge, medium caliber ... gives a nice flat trajectory and some "ummph" at the target ... semi-automatic because varmints tend to come in packs ...

AR-15 is a good one because the citizen-soldier can show up to muster with it and quickly change out the receiver for a military one ... instant M-16 ...

I found myself in a laundry-mat in small town Eastern Oregon one time ... the bulletin board had all the typical "mother's bragging rights" ... girl makes the cheerleader squad, boy gets blue ribbon at county fair, wedding photos ... off to the side was a picture of a coyote with his head split in half, 135 yards with a Bushmaster ... nice shot ...


----------



## Grumblenuts

And the photos when coyotes were fitted with AI driven, converted AR-15 turrets?


----------



## ReinyDays

Grumblenuts said:


> And the photos when coyotes were fitted with AI driven, converted AR-15 turrets?



You need to take off your tin foil helmet and ask your house cat about that ... after she's winded herself with death threats, maybe she'll explain why coyotes are evil ... keep the suture handy, you know, claws and all ...


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> ReinyDays said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> You freakin' idiot. I just told you that there are plenty of amino acids out there in outer space. Now, what important part did you stupidly miss?
> 
> Never mind.
> 
> This may as well be you in front of the judge.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, yes, you want God to burn people because they don't agree with your fairy tales.    You see, this is why I don't believe in Yahweh.  To paraphrase Jean-Luc Picard, I refuse to believe the universe is this badly designed.
> 
> View attachment 427301
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I never said I wanted people to burn.  It's people who do it to themselves like you are doing.  Notice the this is fine dog accepted his fate until it was too late and he felt the burn.  People were given free will and can decide for themselves whether to believe in Jesus as Savior and repent for their sins.
> 
> If you look at the science it's creation science, i.e. real science vs. the fake science of evolutionary thinking and cosmology.
> 
> Strengths of creationist's arguments:  Science backs up Book of Genesis, origins of universe and life on Earth
> Weakness of creationist's arguments:  Age of Earth as 6,000 years (radiocarbon dating), people don't believe other Bible stories
> 
> Strengths of evolutionist's arguments:  Long time (radiometric dating), microevolution or evolution by natural selection
> Weakness of evolutionist's arguments:  Unclear origin of universe and life, no hard evidence for macroevolution or evolution by mutation
> 
> ++++++++
> 
> The studio built this sign for their movie and were filming while I was growing up in San Francisco.  I didn't think about the significance until watching again decades later.  It wasn't considered neo noir until decades later.  I suppose it's one of the reasons why it's considered _neo noir_.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I guess I'm on ignore again ... the biggest weakness to Creation Science is the refusal to learn ... what's set is set never to be changed ... as long as we refuse to understand science, we can always claim it is unclear ... deaf to the Word ... blind to the world about us ... tongues wagging hypocrisy ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Haha.  It's ReinyDays refusal to learn.  For example, you can't talk to posters here in general.  I gave you your chance, but it has to be for me because it's so stupid.  You are the perfect this is fine dog.
> 
> Instead, we have the evidence for a young Earth based on rapidly decaying magnetic field, soft tissue in fossils, bent rock layers, and others which I have discussed without a cretin like you necessary.  That would be a simple crushing blow for evolution, but it's not taught allowed to be taught in public schools.
Click to expand...

Actually, the YEC’ists / Flat Earthers have no evidence to suggest a young earth. All the relevant sciences point unequivocally to a very ancient earth and universe. Biblical literalism, which you falsely identify as ID’iot creationism, is not part of the public school curriculum because it is religion under the false label of “creation science”. The US Constitution has a clearly spelled out “establishment clause” that prohibits religion to be taught in public schools.

It’s comical that ID’iot creationers (Christian fundamentalists), insist that their religious indoctrination would deal a “crushing blow” to science if allowed in public schools. Yet, these same angry fundamentalists cannot explain why their religious dogma masquerading as science would be better explained in the public schools vs.   the relevant science journals and science-based organizations. There’s a reason why Christian ministries don’t publish science related research data in any of the peer reviewed science journals.


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ReinyDays said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> You freakin' idiot. I just told you that there are plenty of amino acids out there in outer space. Now, what important part did you stupidly miss?
> 
> Never mind.
> 
> This may as well be you in front of the judge.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, yes, you want God to burn people because they don't agree with your fairy tales.    You see, this is why I don't believe in Yahweh.  To paraphrase Jean-Luc Picard, I refuse to believe the universe is this badly designed.
> 
> View attachment 427301
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I never said I wanted people to burn.  It's people who do it to themselves like you are doing.  Notice the this is fine dog accepted his fate until it was too late and he felt the burn.  People were given free will and can decide for themselves whether to believe in Jesus as Savior and repent for their sins.
> 
> If you look at the science it's creation science, i.e. real science vs. the fake science of evolutionary thinking and cosmology.
> 
> Strengths of creationist's arguments:  Science backs up Book of Genesis, origins of universe and life on Earth
> Weakness of creationist's arguments:  Age of Earth as 6,000 years (radiocarbon dating), people don't believe other Bible stories
> 
> Strengths of evolutionist's arguments:  Long time (radiometric dating), microevolution or evolution by natural selection
> Weakness of evolutionist's arguments:  Unclear origin of universe and life, no hard evidence for macroevolution or evolution by mutation
> 
> ++++++++
> 
> The studio built this sign for their movie and were filming while I was growing up in San Francisco.  I didn't think about the significance until watching again decades later.  It wasn't considered neo noir until decades later.  I suppose it's one of the reasons why it's considered _neo noir_.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I guess I'm on ignore again ... the biggest weakness to Creation Science is the refusal to learn ... what's set is set never to be changed ... as long as we refuse to understand science, we can always claim it is unclear ... deaf to the Word ... blind to the world about us ... tongues wagging hypocrisy ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Haha.  It's ReinyDays refusal to learn.  For example, you can't talk to posters here in general.  I gave you your chance, but it has to be for me because it's so stupid.  You are the perfect this is fine dog.
> 
> Instead, we have the evidence for a young Earth based on rapidly decaying magnetic field, soft tissue in fossils, bent rock layers, and others which I have discussed without a cretin like you necessary.  That would be a simple crushing blow for evolution, but it's not taught allowed to be taught in public schools.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually, the YEC’ists / Flat Earthers have no evidence to suggest a young earth. All the relevant sciences point unequivocally to a very ancient earth and universe. Biblical literalism, which you falsely identify as ID’iot creationism, is not part of the public school curriculum because it is religion under the false label of “creation science”. The US Constitution has a clearly spelled out “establishment clause” that prohibits religion to be taught in public schools.
> 
> It’s comical that ID’iot creationers (Christian fundamentalists), insist that their religious indoctrination would deal a “crushing blow” to science if allowed in public schools. Yet, these same angry fundamentalists cannot explain why their religious dogma masquerading as science would be better explained in the public schools vs.   the relevant science journals and science-based organizations. There’s a reason why Christian ministries don’t publish science related research data in any of the peer reviewed science journals.
Click to expand...


You're the angry beotchy dog who has turned into the this is fine dog when surrounded by fire.  You continue to make accusations and stereotype people with no evidence.  We are not flat earthers and you have not learned anything from years of God's warnings to you.

Can you talk with ReinyDays?  He's still trying to show abiogenesis and asks, "Can methane can form ethane?"  Afterward, you'll have to be bored spitless for the rest of your life.


----------



## ReinyDays

james bond said:


> He's still trying to show abiogenesis and asks, "Can methane can form ethane?"



Do you agree or disagree? ... a simple question, why don't you answer? ...


----------



## james bond

ReinyDays said:


> Do you agree or disagree? ... a simple question, why don't you answer? ...



I found a nice video for you and the atheists/agnostics here.  It's of such high quality you should be paying for it, but it's free.  I can't compete against it .


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Hollie said:


> There’s a reason why Christian ministries don’t publish science related research data in any of the peer reviewed science journals


Or any journal anywhere. That reason is that creation science does not exist.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ReinyDays said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> You freakin' idiot. I just told you that there are plenty of amino acids out there in outer space. Now, what important part did you stupidly miss?
> 
> Never mind.
> 
> This may as well be you in front of the judge.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, yes, you want God to burn people because they don't agree with your fairy tales.    You see, this is why I don't believe in Yahweh.  To paraphrase Jean-Luc Picard, I refuse to believe the universe is this badly designed.
> 
> View attachment 427301
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I never said I wanted people to burn.  It's people who do it to themselves like you are doing.  Notice the this is fine dog accepted his fate until it was too late and he felt the burn.  People were given free will and can decide for themselves whether to believe in Jesus as Savior and repent for their sins.
> 
> If you look at the science it's creation science, i.e. real science vs. the fake science of evolutionary thinking and cosmology.
> 
> Strengths of creationist's arguments:  Science backs up Book of Genesis, origins of universe and life on Earth
> Weakness of creationist's arguments:  Age of Earth as 6,000 years (radiocarbon dating), people don't believe other Bible stories
> 
> Strengths of evolutionist's arguments:  Long time (radiometric dating), microevolution or evolution by natural selection
> Weakness of evolutionist's arguments:  Unclear origin of universe and life, no hard evidence for macroevolution or evolution by mutation
> 
> ++++++++
> 
> The studio built this sign for their movie and were filming while I was growing up in San Francisco.  I didn't think about the significance until watching again decades later.  It wasn't considered neo noir until decades later.  I suppose it's one of the reasons why it's considered _neo noir_.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I guess I'm on ignore again ... the biggest weakness to Creation Science is the refusal to learn ... what's set is set never to be changed ... as long as we refuse to understand science, we can always claim it is unclear ... deaf to the Word ... blind to the world about us ... tongues wagging hypocrisy ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Haha.  It's ReinyDays refusal to learn.  For example, you can't talk to posters here in general.  I gave you your chance, but it has to be for me because it's so stupid.  You are the perfect this is fine dog.
> 
> Instead, we have the evidence for a young Earth based on rapidly decaying magnetic field, soft tissue in fossils, bent rock layers, and others which I have discussed without a cretin like you necessary.  That would be a simple crushing blow for evolution, but it's not taught allowed to be taught in public schools.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually, the YEC’ists / Flat Earthers have no evidence to suggest a young earth. All the relevant sciences point unequivocally to a very ancient earth and universe. Biblical literalism, which you falsely identify as ID’iot creationism, is not part of the public school curriculum because it is religion under the false label of “creation science”. The US Constitution has a clearly spelled out “establishment clause” that prohibits religion to be taught in public schools.
> 
> It’s comical that ID’iot creationers (Christian fundamentalists), insist that their religious indoctrination would deal a “crushing blow” to science if allowed in public schools. Yet, these same angry fundamentalists cannot explain why their religious dogma masquerading as science would be better explained in the public schools vs.   the relevant science journals and science-based organizations. There’s a reason why Christian ministries don’t publish science related research data in any of the peer reviewed science journals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're the angry beotchy dog who has turned into the this is fine dog when surrounded by fire.  You continue to make accusations and stereotype people with no evidence.  We are not flat earthers and you have not learned anything from years of God's warnings to you.
> 
> Can you talk with ReinyDays?  He's still trying to show abiogenesis and asks, "Can methane can form ethane?"  Afterward, you'll have to be bored spitless for the rest of your life.
Click to expand...

Who is surrounded by fire? Do you believe you have some entitlement to threaten people with your gods? 

It's not stereotyping Biblical literalists to suggest they believe a flat earth. The bible suggests that the earth is flat. Further, I have had no warnings from any gods. Any warnings I have had about burning in some hell have come from you. Do you believe you are gods messenger?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ReinyDays said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> You freakin' idiot. I just told you that there are plenty of amino acids out there in outer space. Now, what important part did you stupidly miss?
> 
> Never mind.
> 
> This may as well be you in front of the judge.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, yes, you want God to burn people because they don't agree with your fairy tales.    You see, this is why I don't believe in Yahweh.  To paraphrase Jean-Luc Picard, I refuse to believe the universe is this badly designed.
> 
> View attachment 427301
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I never said I wanted people to burn.  It's people who do it to themselves like you are doing.  Notice the this is fine dog accepted his fate until it was too late and he felt the burn.  People were given free will and can decide for themselves whether to believe in Jesus as Savior and repent for their sins.
> 
> If you look at the science it's creation science, i.e. real science vs. the fake science of evolutionary thinking and cosmology.
> 
> Strengths of creationist's arguments:  Science backs up Book of Genesis, origins of universe and life on Earth
> Weakness of creationist's arguments:  Age of Earth as 6,000 years (radiocarbon dating), people don't believe other Bible stories
> 
> Strengths of evolutionist's arguments:  Long time (radiometric dating), microevolution or evolution by natural selection
> Weakness of evolutionist's arguments:  Unclear origin of universe and life, no hard evidence for macroevolution or evolution by mutation
> 
> ++++++++
> 
> The studio built this sign for their movie and were filming while I was growing up in San Francisco.  I didn't think about the significance until watching again decades later.  It wasn't considered neo noir until decades later.  I suppose it's one of the reasons why it's considered _neo noir_.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I guess I'm on ignore again ... the biggest weakness to Creation Science is the refusal to learn ... what's set is set never to be changed ... as long as we refuse to understand science, we can always claim it is unclear ... deaf to the Word ... blind to the world about us ... tongues wagging hypocrisy ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Haha.  It's ReinyDays refusal to learn.  For example, you can't talk to posters here in general.  I gave you your chance, but it has to be for me because it's so stupid.  You are the perfect this is fine dog.
> 
> Instead, we have the evidence for a young Earth based on rapidly decaying magnetic field, soft tissue in fossils, bent rock layers, and others which I have discussed without a cretin like you necessary.  That would be a simple crushing blow for evolution, but it's not taught allowed to be taught in public schools.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually, the YEC’ists / Flat Earthers have no evidence to suggest a young earth. All the relevant sciences point unequivocally to a very ancient earth and universe. Biblical literalism, which you falsely identify as ID’iot creationism, is not part of the public school curriculum because it is religion under the false label of “creation science”. The US Constitution has a clearly spelled out “establishment clause” that prohibits religion to be taught in public schools.
> 
> It’s comical that ID’iot creationers (Christian fundamentalists), insist that their religious indoctrination would deal a “crushing blow” to science if allowed in public schools. Yet, these same angry fundamentalists cannot explain why their religious dogma masquerading as science would be better explained in the public schools vs.   the relevant science journals and science-based organizations. There’s a reason why Christian ministries don’t publish science related research data in any of the peer reviewed science journals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're the angry beotchy dog who has turned into the this is fine dog when surrounded by fire.  You continue to make accusations and stereotype people with no evidence.  We are not flat earthers and you have not learned anything from years of God's warnings to you.
> 
> Can you talk with ReinyDays?  He's still trying to show abiogenesis and asks, "Can methane can form ethane?"  Afterward, you'll have to be bored spitless for the rest of your life.
Click to expand...

Abiogenesis is a forgone conclusion. You are free to sprinkle magical hooha on it and say it is god's plan. That affects nothing but your own feelings.


----------



## Grumblenuts

ReinyDays said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> And the photos when coyotes were fitted with AI driven, converted AR-15 turrets?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You need to take off your tin foil helmet and ask your house cat about that ... after she's winded herself with death threats, maybe she'll explain why coyotes are evil ... keep the suture handy, you know, claws and all ...
Click to expand...

Yeah, yeah  No need for any toy machine guns here. My house coyote controls the varmints just fine:


----------



## LuckyDuck

Much of what we see through our most advanced telescopes are vast numbers of galaxies, much like our own.  It is estimated that, based upon the number of planets we are finding in our galactic neighborhood, an estimate of 21.6 "sextillion" planets may orbit the stars.  To believe that out of that vast amount of planets, WE are the only advanced civilization in existence, is absurd.  As to not hearing from any advanced civilizations, one must consider the vast distances from those far away planets.  Radio waves travel at about 186,411 miles per second, similar to the speed of light.  Depending upon how far the nearest planet that has advanced life on it, sits in relation to ours, the likelihood of us hearing from them is remote.
Also, since the 21.6 sextillion planet figure, based upon what we are finding in relation to how many stars have orbiting exoplanets (keep in mind that just because we don't see regular fluctuations in stars, indicating orbiting planets, doesn't mean there are no planets orbiting the stars, only that the orbits may be along a different plane that what we can see) around them, to think that WE are somehow ultra-special and the only intelligent live in the universe, is vastly ego-centric and comes from a place of ignorance.


----------



## Grumblenuts

ReinyDays said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> He's still trying to show abiogenesis and asks, "Can methane can form ethane?"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you agree or disagree? ... a simple question, why don't you answer? ...
Click to expand...

Mercy. You've now got James so upset he's reduced to babbling incoherent nonsense as opposed to his usual sort.


----------



## ReinyDays

james bond said:


> ReinyDays said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you agree or disagree? ... a simple question, why don't you answer? ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I found a nice video for you and the atheists/agnostics here.  It's of such high quality you should be paying for it, but it's free.  I can't compete against it .
Click to expand...


Long ... what the timestamp for their discussion of methane forming ethane? ... 
2 CH4 -> C2H6 + H2 ... yes or no? ...
You know where this goes, you've been down this road before ... it refutes your claims and you know it ... does this make you a liar? ...


----------



## ReinyDays

Grumblenuts said:


> Yeah, yeah  No need for any toy machine guns here. My house coyote controls the varmints just fine:



Poor squirrel ... see how evil coyotes are? ... that squirrel was a meal for some homeless person living in North Park ... oh the humanity ...


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Grumblenuts said:


> You've now got James so upset he's reduced to babbling incoherent nonsense as opposed to his usual sort.


I have no idea how to tell when that has started.


----------



## ReinyDays

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> I have no idea how to tell when that has started.



We need to direct James back to chirality ... my God, that's funny ...


----------



## Grumblenuts

Deck the halls with peptide bioregulators
Fa la la la laaaa..

Sorry.. suddenly felt like singing Christmas chirals..


----------



## evenflow1969

Blackrook said:


> But belief in these theories are more wishful thinking than reality.
> 
> The concept that there are an infinite number of parallel universes is poppycock. Even if true, there will never be a way to prove it.
> 
> If extra-terrestrial civilizations existed, we'd know it by now. We've been listening for their radio signals for decades and in all that time we've heard squat.
> 
> The reality is that atheist scientists have pushed belief in these notions because they hate Christianity and want to undermine people's faith in religion.


Ya,waves experience disturbance and weeken after distance traveled. So not exactly the smoking gun for not finding them. Aliens nor multi verse preclude a creator.  These things can exist and still have been created by intelligent design. These things are more than possible according to mathematics. You wanna believe in the Bible do it. The aliens ain't gonna stop you. Neither am I.  So be so kind as to allow others to have their beliefs also.


----------



## evenflow1969

Grumblenuts said:


> To a Great Designer what purpose could possibly be served by having humans possess failing eyesight? Heart disease? Hearing loss? Why have us fall apart as we grow older?


These things you have mentioned are not all bad. As my body changed with age so did my activities.  Some things I do now I am glad because I like them. Maybe just giving us the chance for variety.


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ReinyDays said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> You freakin' idiot. I just told you that there are plenty of amino acids out there in outer space. Now, what important part did you stupidly miss?
> 
> Never mind.
> 
> This may as well be you in front of the judge.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, yes, you want God to burn people because they don't agree with your fairy tales.    You see, this is why I don't believe in Yahweh.  To paraphrase Jean-Luc Picard, I refuse to believe the universe is this badly designed.
> 
> View attachment 427301
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I never said I wanted people to burn.  It's people who do it to themselves like you are doing.  Notice the this is fine dog accepted his fate until it was too late and he felt the burn.  People were given free will and can decide for themselves whether to believe in Jesus as Savior and repent for their sins.
> 
> If you look at the science it's creation science, i.e. real science vs. the fake science of evolutionary thinking and cosmology.
> 
> Strengths of creationist's arguments:  Science backs up Book of Genesis, origins of universe and life on Earth
> Weakness of creationist's arguments:  Age of Earth as 6,000 years (radiocarbon dating), people don't believe other Bible stories
> 
> Strengths of evolutionist's arguments:  Long time (radiometric dating), microevolution or evolution by natural selection
> Weakness of evolutionist's arguments:  Unclear origin of universe and life, no hard evidence for macroevolution or evolution by mutation
> 
> ++++++++
> 
> The studio built this sign for their movie and were filming while I was growing up in San Francisco.  I didn't think about the significance until watching again decades later.  It wasn't considered neo noir until decades later.  I suppose it's one of the reasons why it's considered _neo noir_.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I guess I'm on ignore again ... the biggest weakness to Creation Science is the refusal to learn ... what's set is set never to be changed ... as long as we refuse to understand science, we can always claim it is unclear ... deaf to the Word ... blind to the world about us ... tongues wagging hypocrisy ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Haha.  It's ReinyDays refusal to learn.  For example, you can't talk to posters here in general.  I gave you your chance, but it has to be for me because it's so stupid.  You are the perfect this is fine dog.
> 
> Instead, we have the evidence for a young Earth based on rapidly decaying magnetic field, soft tissue in fossils, bent rock layers, and others which I have discussed without a cretin like you necessary.  That would be a simple crushing blow for evolution, but it's not taught allowed to be taught in public schools.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually, the YEC’ists / Flat Earthers have no evidence to suggest a young earth. All the relevant sciences point unequivocally to a very ancient earth and universe. Biblical literalism, which you falsely identify as ID’iot creationism, is not part of the public school curriculum because it is religion under the false label of “creation science”. The US Constitution has a clearly spelled out “establishment clause” that prohibits religion to be taught in public schools.
> 
> It’s comical that ID’iot creationers (Christian fundamentalists), insist that their religious indoctrination would deal a “crushing blow” to science if allowed in public schools. Yet, these same angry fundamentalists cannot explain why their religious dogma masquerading as science would be better explained in the public schools vs.   the relevant science journals and science-based organizations. There’s a reason why Christian ministries don’t publish science related research data in any of the peer reviewed science journals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're the angry beotchy dog who has turned into the this is fine dog when surrounded by fire.  You continue to make accusations and stereotype people with no evidence.  We are not flat earthers and you have not learned anything from years of God's warnings to you.
> 
> Can you talk with ReinyDays?  He's still trying to show abiogenesis and asks, "Can methane can form ethane?"  Afterward, you'll have to be bored spitless for the rest of your life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who is surrounded by fire? Do you believe you have some entitlement to threaten people with your gods?
> 
> It's not stereotyping Biblical literalists to suggest they believe a flat earth. The bible suggests that the earth is flat. Further, I have had no warnings from any gods. Any warnings I have had about burning in some hell have come from you. Do you believe you are gods messenger?
Click to expand...


I just said you are the one surrounded by fire and think this is fine.  No Biblical literalist believes in a flat Earth.  We believe in creation science.

You have received God's warnings as he loves you, but have not paid any attention.  Nothing I say gets through to you.


----------



## james bond

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Abiogenesis is a forgone conclusion. You are free to sprinkle magical hooha on it and say it is god's plan. That affects nothing but your own feelings.



Only in your wishful thinking mind because Pasteur debunked it in 1861 with his swan neck experiment.  It's really a creative and ingenious piece of work.  OTOH you believe in poo poo like others here.


----------



## james bond

LuckyDuck said:


> Much of what we see through our most advanced telescopes are vast numbers of galaxies, much like our own.  It is estimated that, based upon the number of planets we are finding in our galactic neighborhood, an estimate of 21.6 "sextillion" planets may orbit the stars.  To believe that out of that vast amount of planets, WE are the only advanced civilization in existence, is absurd.  As to not hearing from any advanced civilizations, one must consider the vast distances from those far away planets.  Radio waves travel at about 186,411 miles per second, similar to the speed of light.  Depending upon how far the nearest planet that has advanced life on it, sits in relation to ours, the likelihood of us hearing from them is remote.
> Also, since the 21.6 sextillion planet figure, based upon what we are finding in relation to how many stars have orbiting exoplanets (keep in mind that just because we don't see regular fluctuations in stars, indicating orbiting planets, doesn't mean there are no planets orbiting the stars, only that the orbits may be along a different plane that what we can see) around them, to think that WE are somehow ultra-special and the only intelligent live in the universe, is vastly ego-centric and comes from a place of ignorance.


----------



## james bond

ReinyDays said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ReinyDays said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you agree or disagree? ... a simple question, why don't you answer? ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I found a nice video for you and the atheists/agnostics here.  It's of such high quality you should be paying for it, but it's free.  I can't compete against it .
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Long ... what the timestamp for their discussion of methane forming ethane? ...
> 2 CH4 -> C2H6 + H2 ... yes or no? ...
> You know where this goes, you've been down this road before ... it refutes your claims and you know it ... does this make you a liar? ...
Click to expand...


Grumblenuts wants to take a crack at it.  Ask him.  I'm not interested anymore as I gave you several chances to explain, but couldn't.


----------



## james bond

Grumblenuts said:


> ReinyDays said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> He's still trying to show abiogenesis and asks, "Can methane can form ethane?"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you agree or disagree? ... a simple question, why don't you answer? ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Mercy. You've now got James so upset he's reduced to babbling incoherent nonsense as opposed to his usual sort.
Click to expand...


Maybe you can talk with him and humor him.


----------



## ReinyDays

james bond said:


> I'm not interested anymore as I gave you several chances to explain, but couldn't.



You haven't answered my question ... are you running off with your tail between your legs? ...


----------



## james bond

I got some news of interest to both sides about the James Webb telescope.  It's been delayed, but now scheduled to launch October 31, 2021.  It cost $10 billion and some twenty five years in the making.  Here is it's objective:

"The JWST primary mission objectives is to examine the first light in the Universe (Evolutionist speak for examining the galaxies which are furthest away.) But another aim is to study the properties of exoplanets, specifically to detect and analyse their atmospheres, in particular any signs of life.

The hunt for extra-terrestrial life today is fueled by the evolution story. The reasoning goes, if life evolved spontaneously on Earth, then surely it should have evolved somewhere else too?"

If it finds no aliens, then I'm ready to celebrate.









						Will the James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) find extra-terrestrial life? - creation.com
					

Will NASA’s James Webb Space telescope find that habitable zone exoplanets have habitable atmospheres?




					creation.com


----------



## Grumblenuts

evenflow1969 said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> To a Great Designer what purpose could possibly be served by having humans possess failing eyesight? Heart disease? Hearing loss? Why have us fall apart as we grow older?
> 
> 
> 
> These things you have mentioned are not all bad. As my body changed with age so did my activities.  Some things I do now I am glad because I like them. Maybe just giving us the chance for variety.
Click to expand...

Thanks, but the point was deterioration, not change. Death and aging are never presented as though "in God's image," nor as "sins." They are presented as though stuff we need fear and possibly regret. They mark us as "imperfect," mere mortals in need of "saving," "atonement," "enlightenment," and such rot. As though we're all born guilty rather than innocent, and deserve only increased suffering from there on. Pretty gross, sadistic concepts, though no doubt a handy way to keep the masses compliant and self-distracted. Same as having exactly two major ("viable") political parties and painting them opposing colors. All stinks of manipulation, no? Is our participation in these games really required? Rather than stemming from birth, perhaps evil's genuine root is constantly allowing a relative few possession of way too much?


----------



## JoeB131

james bond said:


> I never said I wanted people to burn. It's people who do it to themselves like you are doing. Notice the this is fine dog accepted his fate until it was too late and he felt the burn. People were given free will and can decide for themselves whether to believe in Jesus as Savior and repent for their sins.



That's still kind of fucked up, really.  "Worship me or I will burn you for all eternity!!!"  "Make the wrong choices and I will burn you for all eternity!!!"  

Seriously, would you want someone like that as a friend? Why would you want someone like that as a God. 




james bond said:


> Strengths of creationist's arguments: Science backs up Book of Genesis, origins of universe and life on Earth



Except it does no such thing. In fact, some of it is just crazy, such as plants being created before the sun was. 



james bond said:


> nstead, we have the evidence for a young Earth based on rapidly decaying magnetic field, soft tissue in fossils, bent rock layers, and others which I have discussed without a cretin like you necessary. That would be a simple crushing blow for evolution, but it's not taught allowed to be taught in public schools.



Because it's utter bullshit.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ReinyDays said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> You freakin' idiot. I just told you that there are plenty of amino acids out there in outer space. Now, what important part did you stupidly miss?
> 
> Never mind.
> 
> This may as well be you in front of the judge.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, yes, you want God to burn people because they don't agree with your fairy tales.    You see, this is why I don't believe in Yahweh.  To paraphrase Jean-Luc Picard, I refuse to believe the universe is this badly designed.
> 
> View attachment 427301
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I never said I wanted people to burn.  It's people who do it to themselves like you are doing.  Notice the this is fine dog accepted his fate until it was too late and he felt the burn.  People were given free will and can decide for themselves whether to believe in Jesus as Savior and repent for their sins.
> 
> If you look at the science it's creation science, i.e. real science vs. the fake science of evolutionary thinking and cosmology.
> 
> Strengths of creationist's arguments:  Science backs up Book of Genesis, origins of universe and life on Earth
> Weakness of creationist's arguments:  Age of Earth as 6,000 years (radiocarbon dating), people don't believe other Bible stories
> 
> Strengths of evolutionist's arguments:  Long time (radiometric dating), microevolution or evolution by natural selection
> Weakness of evolutionist's arguments:  Unclear origin of universe and life, no hard evidence for macroevolution or evolution by mutation
> 
> ++++++++
> 
> The studio built this sign for their movie and were filming while I was growing up in San Francisco.  I didn't think about the significance until watching again decades later.  It wasn't considered neo noir until decades later.  I suppose it's one of the reasons why it's considered _neo noir_.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I guess I'm on ignore again ... the biggest weakness to Creation Science is the refusal to learn ... what's set is set never to be changed ... as long as we refuse to understand science, we can always claim it is unclear ... deaf to the Word ... blind to the world about us ... tongues wagging hypocrisy ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Haha.  It's ReinyDays refusal to learn.  For example, you can't talk to posters here in general.  I gave you your chance, but it has to be for me because it's so stupid.  You are the perfect this is fine dog.
> 
> Instead, we have the evidence for a young Earth based on rapidly decaying magnetic field, soft tissue in fossils, bent rock layers, and others which I have discussed without a cretin like you necessary.  That would be a simple crushing blow for evolution, but it's not taught allowed to be taught in public schools.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually, the YEC’ists / Flat Earthers have no evidence to suggest a young earth. All the relevant sciences point unequivocally to a very ancient earth and universe. Biblical literalism, which you falsely identify as ID’iot creationism, is not part of the public school curriculum because it is religion under the false label of “creation science”. The US Constitution has a clearly spelled out “establishment clause” that prohibits religion to be taught in public schools.
> 
> It’s comical that ID’iot creationers (Christian fundamentalists), insist that their religious indoctrination would deal a “crushing blow” to science if allowed in public schools. Yet, these same angry fundamentalists cannot explain why their religious dogma masquerading as science would be better explained in the public schools vs.   the relevant science journals and science-based organizations. There’s a reason why Christian ministries don’t publish science related research data in any of the peer reviewed science journals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're the angry beotchy dog who has turned into the this is fine dog when surrounded by fire.  You continue to make accusations and stereotype people with no evidence.  We are not flat earthers and you have not learned anything from years of God's warnings to you.
> 
> Can you talk with ReinyDays?  He's still trying to show abiogenesis and asks, "Can methane can form ethane?"  Afterward, you'll have to be bored spitless for the rest of your life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who is surrounded by fire? Do you believe you have some entitlement to threaten people with your gods?
> 
> It's not stereotyping Biblical literalists to suggest they believe a flat earth. The bible suggests that the earth is flat. Further, I have had no warnings from any gods. Any warnings I have had about burning in some hell have come from you. Do you believe you are gods messenger?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I just said you are the one surrounded by fire and think this is fine.  No Biblical literalist believes in a flat Earth.  We believe in creation science.
> 
> You have received God's warnings as he loves you, but have not paid any attention.  Nothing I say gets through to you.
Click to expand...

I'm filled with a sense of that ''Christian spirit'' when I'm threatened by a fundamentalist and lectured about being surrounded by fire. Are you the gods capo? And yes, you believe in the falsely labeled ''creation science'' because that label is nothing more than another term for fundamentalist Christianity. 

No, I have received no messages from the gods. I have only received threats and lectures from angry religioners who tend to have a need to drench others with their self-hate and fears.


----------



## Grumblenuts

In mankind's  beginning there were hunter-gatherers and it was good. Then we figured out how to grow shit so needed venture out less. Some became bigtime landlords and began imposing rents. Then it was bad. The renters didn't cooperate. They needed to know their place.  The owners thought long and hard. _Hmm.._


----------



## Grumblenuts

Word of the day:

*subjector*
*Pronunciation /səbˈdʒɛktə/*
See synonyms for subjector
*NOUN*


A person who brings someone or something into a state of subjection, subordination, or submission; a subjugator.


----------



## ReinyDays

JoeB131 said:


> That's still kind of fucked up, really.  "Worship me or I will burn you for all eternity!!!"  "Make the wrong choices and I will burn you for all eternity!!!"
> Seriously, would you want someone like that as a friend? Why would you want someone like that as a God.



Don't judge Christianity by the behaviors of Christians ... else Heathenism will be judged by the behaviors of Heathens ...


----------



## Grumblenuts

For the record, I don't want multiple universes and extra-terrestrial civilizations to exist period.


----------



## james bond

JoeB131 said:


> That's still kind of fucked up, really. "Worship me or I will burn you for all eternity!!!" "Make the wrong choices and I will burn you for all eternity!!!"
> 
> Seriously, would you want someone like that as a friend? Why would you want someone like that as a God.



That's now what was said.  You misinterpret to stick with the this is fine theme.



JoeB131 said:


> Except it does no such thing. In fact, some of it is just crazy, such as plants being created before the sun was.



More of the same as science backs up BoG.  The Bible isn't a science book, but science backs it up.  Otherwise, we wouldn't have a leg to stand on in S&T.  Just look which side is winning here.



JoeB131 said:


> Because it's utter bullshit.



More of the this is fine theme.  It is not fine.  Science should teach what was valid before the 1850s as there are some big holes in evolution.  Let the creation scientists back in on peer review.  Make those atheist scientists back up their multiverse hypotheses.  For example, you this is fine thinking has or will lead you to believe stupid BS like the multiverse which has absolutely no evidence.


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> I'm filled with a sense of that ''Christian spirit'' when I'm threatened by a fundamentalist and lectured about being surrounded by fire. Are you the gods capo? And yes, you believe in the falsely labeled ''creation science'' because that label is nothing more than another term for fundamentalist Christianity.



That's not what was said.  You still deny your this is fine approach.  God has warned you about the fire and atheism as a religion is the furthest from the truth (do I really need to post those openbible verses again?).  Yet, you believe your atheist religion is the truth and true science despite the evidence against it.


----------



## james bond

ReinyDays said:


> Don't judge Christianity by the behaviors of Christians ... else Heathenism will be judged by the behaviors of Heathens ...



There is only one judge in Christianity.  Both Heathens and Christians have a human judge, but just for their behaviors and laws while living.  We also share the common ground of death and taxes.

ETA:  So the only difference is Final Judgement.


----------



## ReinyDays

james bond said:


> There is only one judge in Christianity.  Both Heathens and Christians have a human judge, but just for their behaviors and laws while living.  We also share the common ground of death and taxes.
> ETA:  So the only difference is Final Judgement.



I see God's judgement all around me ... and I actively seek out God's judgements as a matter of lifestyle ... all God's judgements are righteous and true ... as a mortal man, I aspire to such righteousness and truth and learn by God's wrath ... and always I fall short, but I'll stand there and fully accept my punishment in this life ... having faith through Jesus that I will always emerge from the fire a better man ... 

Your plan seems to be to commit all manner of fuckery in this life, confess your sins on your deathbed, have a priest forgive you ... then pie-in-the-sky go-to-heaven-when-you-die ... 

The sad part of this whole discourse is that you seem less informed about The Creation than you are about science ... blind to the fact you set stumbling blocks before those who would seek Christ themselves ... you should be ashamed of yourself ... calling on the name of the Prince of Peace to wage war ...


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm filled with a sense of that ''Christian spirit'' when I'm threatened by a fundamentalist and lectured about being surrounded by fire. Are you the gods capo? And yes, you believe in the falsely labeled ''creation science'' because that label is nothing more than another term for fundamentalist Christianity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's not what was said.  You still deny your this is fine approach.  God has warned you about the fire and atheism as a religion is the furthest from the truth (do I really need to post those openbible verses again?).  Yet, you believe your atheist religion is the truth and true science despite the evidence against it.
Click to expand...

You apparently believe it is your mission to threaten others with the wrath of your gods. No gods have warned me about some nonsensical fire in some alleged afterlife. Your fears and superstitions are your own.

You seem to have misunderstood your Bible’ology. It was men who wrote the Bibles. It is they who wrote of fires, damnation and eternal punishment. Superstitious tales and fables written by superstitious men were common for the time. None of your gods had any direct hand in anything written in any of the Bibles. Your comments such as “... god said...” are false and misleading.

An atheist religion is an utter contradiction in terms so I’m left to believe you’re intentionally promoting a falsehood. Atheism has none of the trappings of religion; rituals, customs, practices, manuals to worship or a hierarchy of gods and men who worship those manuals.


----------



## james bond

ReinyDays said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is only one judge in Christianity.  Both Heathens and Christians have a human judge, but just for their behaviors and laws while living.  We also share the common ground of death and taxes.
> ETA:  So the only difference is Final Judgement.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I see God's judgement all around me ... and I actively seek out God's judgements as a matter of lifestyle ... all God's judgements are righteous and true ... as a mortal man, I aspire to such righteousness and truth and learn by God's wrath ... and always I fall short, but I'll stand there and fully accept my punishment in this life ... having faith through Jesus that I will always emerge from the fire a better man ...
> 
> Your plan seems to be to commit all manner of fuckery in this life, confess your sins on your deathbed, have a priest forgive you ... then pie-in-the-sky go-to-heaven-when-you-die ...
> 
> The sad part of this whole discourse is that you seem less informed about The Creation than you are about science ... blind to the fact you set stumbling blocks before those who would seek Christ themselves ... you should be ashamed of yourself ... calling on the name of the Prince of Peace to wage war ...
Click to expand...


I doubt you are a person of the Holy Spirit believing in long time and evolution.  Besides, you are absolutely wrong in judging me.  I only have to have what is in my heart and be raised by the Lord.

>>Your plan seems to be to commit all manner of fuckery in this life, confess your sins on your deathbed, have a priest forgive you ... then pie-in-the-sky go-to-heaven-when-you-die ...<<

You are your mother's son.

>>The sad part of this whole discourse is that you seem less informed about The Creation than you are about science ... blind to the fact you set stumbling blocks before those who would seek Christ themselves ... you should be ashamed of yourself ... calling on the name of the Prince of Peace to wage war ...<<

Sad to see someone go off the edge, but I suppose the truth hurts.


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm filled with a sense of that ''Christian spirit'' when I'm threatened by a fundamentalist and lectured about being surrounded by fire. Are you the gods capo? And yes, you believe in the falsely labeled ''creation science'' because that label is nothing more than another term for fundamentalist Christianity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's not what was said.  You still deny your this is fine approach.  God has warned you about the fire and atheism as a religion is the furthest from the truth (do I really need to post those openbible verses again?).  Yet, you believe your atheist religion is the truth and true science despite the evidence against it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You apparently believe it is your mission to threaten others with the wrath of your gods. No gods have warned me about some nonsensical fire in some alleged afterlife. Your fears and superstitions are your own.
> 
> You seem to have misunderstood your Bible’ology. It was men who wrote the Bibles. It is they who wrote of fires, damnation and eternal punishment. Superstitious tales and fables written by superstitious men were common for the time. None of your gods had any direct hand in anything written in any of the Bibles. Your comments such as “... god said...” are false and misleading.
> 
> An atheist religion is an utter contradiction in terms so I’m left to believe you’re intentionally promoting a falsehood. Atheism has none of the trappings of religion; rituals, customs, practices, manuals to worship or a hierarchy of gods and men who worship those manuals.
Click to expand...


I don't think you appreciate what warning means.  It is someone, i.e. God, who loves you that gives you warning.  Thus, it isn't from me.  If anything, I am only a messenger.  And why would I threaten you?  For what reason?  You're just another poster on here.

>>You seem to have misunderstood your Bible’ology. It was men who wrote the Bibles. It is they who wrote of fires, damnation and eternal punishment. Superstitious tales and fables written by superstitious men were common for the time. None of your gods had any direct hand in anything written in any of the Bibles. Your comments such as “... god said...” are false and misleading.<<

This is upsetting as you do not realize that you have no clue as to what you are talking about.  Nor understand the Bible.

>>An atheist religion is an utter contradiction in terms so I’m left to believe you’re intentionally promoting a falsehood. Atheism has none of the trappings of religion; rituals, customs, practices, manuals to worship or a hierarchy of gods and men who worship those manuals.<<

I think you have to admit the atheist religion first.  Second, you have to repent and figure out what the _real_ truth is.  Appartently, you are way wrong because of being misled.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm filled with a sense of that ''Christian spirit'' when I'm threatened by a fundamentalist and lectured about being surrounded by fire. Are you the gods capo? And yes, you believe in the falsely labeled ''creation science'' because that label is nothing more than another term for fundamentalist Christianity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's not what was said.  You still deny your this is fine approach.  God has warned you about the fire and atheism as a religion is the furthest from the truth (do I really need to post those openbible verses again?).  Yet, you believe your atheist religion is the truth and true science despite the evidence against it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You apparently believe it is your mission to threaten others with the wrath of your gods. No gods have warned me about some nonsensical fire in some alleged afterlife. Your fears and superstitions are your own.
> 
> You seem to have misunderstood your Bible’ology. It was men who wrote the Bibles. It is they who wrote of fires, damnation and eternal punishment. Superstitious tales and fables written by superstitious men were common for the time. None of your gods had any direct hand in anything written in any of the Bibles. Your comments such as “... god said...” are false and misleading.
> 
> An atheist religion is an utter contradiction in terms so I’m left to believe you’re intentionally promoting a falsehood. Atheism has none of the trappings of religion; rituals, customs, practices, manuals to worship or a hierarchy of gods and men who worship those manuals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't think you appreciate what warning means.  It is someone, i.e. God, who loves you that gives you warning.  Thus, it isn't from me.  If anything, I am only a messenger.  And why would I threaten you?  For what reason?  You're just another poster on here.
> 
> >>You seem to have misunderstood your Bible’ology. It was men who wrote the Bibles. It is they who wrote of fires, damnation and eternal punishment. Superstitious tales and fables written by superstitious men were common for the time. None of your gods had any direct hand in anything written in any of the Bibles. Your comments such as “... god said...” are false and misleading.<<
> 
> This is upsetting as you do not realize that you have no clue as to what you are talking about.  Nor understand the Bible.
> 
> >>An atheist religion is an utter contradiction in terms so I’m left to believe you’re intentionally promoting a falsehood. Atheism has none of the trappings of religion; rituals, customs, practices, manuals to worship or a hierarchy of gods and men who worship those manuals.<<
> 
> I think you have to admit the atheist religion first.  Second, you have to repent and figure out what the _real_ truth is.  Appartently, you are way wrong because of being misled.
Click to expand...


You will have to excuse me for not being intimidated by warnings from some gods you have decided you “speak” on behalf of.

What I find upsetting is that you seem to believe that one or more of your gods actually had a hand in authoring one or more of the Bibles. Shrubbery spontaneously bursting into flames doesn’t suggest authoring of anything. Can you provide a single, verifiable instance of one or more of your gods actually writing anything contained in the Bibles?

I think you need to provide an example of something you call an atheist religion. Can you identify any of the rituals, customs, practices or places of worship for this atheist religion you claim exists? Is there a specific day when atheists gather to hold religious services, to pray to an atheist god? Do you see the absurdity in the notion of an atheist god? What is the h9ky book of atheism? Is there a holy city of atheism where atheists congregate and wear big, funny hats?


----------



## ReinyDays

james bond said:


> Sad to see someone go off the edge, but I suppose the truth hurts.



Do you agree or disagree that methane can combine into ethane? ... run away little boy, one simple question shuts you down hard ...


----------



## Grumblenuts

Hollie said:


> An atheist religion is an utter contradiction in terms so I’m left to believe you’re intentionally promoting a falsehood.


A factually unquestionable premise leading directly to a logically derived conclusion. Boom!
But contrast with that just prior:


> You seem to have misunderstood your Bible’ology. It was men who wrote the Bibles. It is they who wrote of fires, damnation and eternal punishment. Superstitious tales and fables written by superstitious men were common for the time.


A fun but comparatively weaselly start ("seem to"). Then a strong assertion of fact ("It was"). Then another, but introducing a tense dispute ("it is"). Then more, plus imposing a time dependence upon the quantity of superstition in men. All "seeming" like carts begging to be rescued by their respective horses which never arrive..

Are men really less superstitious today? No idea. Haven't studied it, but I suspect not much. Perhaps different and more varied?  My point here though is why presume the authors back then significantly different from the Jameses of today?

Why not presume they were  "intentionally promoting" falsehoods as well? That they too knew what they were promoting was BS the whole time? That they had significant investments at stake? That they were normal? Porn, for example, is clearly driven neither by logic nor ethics. Many don't even appear to care about what makes sense anymore. Perhaps, in this way at least, they weren't different back then?


----------



## Grumblenuts

The used car salesman typically just wants to make a killing selling lemons to desperate people. Gives not a fig about anything but profit. Appears devoutly religious. Sleeps like a baby at night.


----------



## JoeB131

ReinyDays said:


> Don't judge Christianity by the behaviors of Christians ... else Heathenism will be judged by the behaviors of Heathens ...



I don't.  I'm judging Christianity by it's own dogma.  

By Christian Dogma, Jeffrey Dahmner is in heaven and Anne Franke is in Hell.  That's messed up on so many levels. 

Let's review, shall we?  

In Christianity, if you confess your sins and embrace Jesus in your heart, you are going to heaven.  Jeff did that.  Assuming his conversion was sincere, and I have no reason to believe it wasn't, he was sincerely sorry about all those guys he ate.  God forgave him and cleansed his soul with baptism.  He gets into heaven. Fortunately, most of the guys he ate were Sodomites, so he won't run into any of them up there.   That would be awkward.  

Meanwhile, Anne Frank never accepted Jesus into her heart, so down to hell she goes to burn for all eternity.  Hopefully she doesn't run into any Nazis down there, because that would be awkward.


----------



## james bond

ReinyDays said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sad to see someone go off the edge, but I suppose the truth hurts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you agree or disagree that methane can combine into ethane? ... run away little boy, one simple question shuts you down hard ...
Click to expand...



I guess you didn't watch my previous methane video, so here's a better one.  Enjoy!


----------



## ReinyDays

JoeB131 said:


> By Christian Dogma, Jeffrey Dahmner is in heaven and Anne Franke is in Hell.  That's messed up on so many levels.



Good thing it doesn't say that in the Bible, unless I'm mistaken ... have a passage or chapter in mind? ...


----------



## james bond

JoeB131 said:


> ReinyDays said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't judge Christianity by the behaviors of Christians ... else Heathenism will be judged by the behaviors of Heathens ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't.  I'm judging Christianity by it's own dogma.
> 
> By Christian Dogma, Jeffrey Dahmner is in heaven and Anne Franke is in Hell.  That's messed up on so many levels.
> 
> Let's review, shall we?
> 
> In Christianity, if you confess your sins and embrace Jesus in your heart, you are going to heaven.  Jeff did that.  Assuming his conversion was sincere, and I have no reason to believe it wasn't, he was sincerely sorry about all those guys he ate.  God forgave him and cleansed his soul with baptism.  He gets into heaven. Fortunately, most of the guys he ate were Sodomites, so he won't run into any of them up there.   That would be awkward.
> 
> Meanwhile, Anne Frank never accepted Jesus into her heart, so down to hell she goes to burn for all eternity.  Hopefully she doesn't run into any Nazis down there, because that would be awkward.
Click to expand...


You're judging Christianity by your own dogma because of the examples you choose in order cast it in a negative and contradictory light.  What kind of heart do you have?  Humans can't see into a person's heart to see if they are sincere or not.

We don't know for sure what happens to these people as Jesus is the only one who can see into people's hearts.


----------



## ReinyDays

james bond said:


> I guess you didn't watch my previous methane video, so here's a better one.  Enjoy!



Does all your little boy mind think of is fart jokes? ... does one fart ethane as well? ...


----------



## james bond

ReinyDays said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> I guess you didn't watch my previous methane video, so here's a better one.  Enjoy!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Does all your little boy mind think of is fart jokes? ... does one fart ethane as well? ...
Click to expand...


Like I said I'm not the only one here.  I'm the one who thinks you blew your chance to explain.


----------



## ReinyDays

james bond said:


> Like I said I'm not the only one here.  I'm the one who thinks you blew your chance to explain.



You're the only one who claims abiogenesis can't happen ... you have to agree that methane can form ethane first ... or there's no explaining it to you ... which is as you like it ... "nah nah nah nah ... I can't hear you" ..


----------



## Grumblenuts

Teach: "Shaken. Not stirred. Oh, yeah":


> 2CH4 (g) + 1/2O2 (g) ----> C 2 H 6 (g) + H2O (g)
> 
> when you use the bond enthalapies to estimate Delta H for this reaction, The net enthalpy of the reaction is then negative (~200 + 60 -240 -100 = -80 kcal/mol) so more  thermodynamically favourable.


Grumblenuts: "Favorable, dammit. Speak English!" 
Bond, James Bond: "Thank you so much. I get it now ! Thanks" 
Grumblenuts: "Oh, jeez. Try to be a man? For once in your life?!"


----------



## JoeB131

ReinyDays said:


> Good thing it doesn't say that in the Bible, unless I'm mistaken ... have a passage or chapter in mind? ...





Yup.  Ann Frank went to hell. 

_In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ: Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction_. 2 Thessalonians 1:8-9 

Jeff Dahmner went to Heaven. 


> _Whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life_. -- John 3:16





> _I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live. And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die. -_- John 11:25-26


----------



## ReinyDays

JoeB131 said:


> Yup.  Ann Frank went to hell.
> _In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ: Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction_. 2 Thessalonians 1:8-9
> Jeff Dahmner went to Heaven.
> 
> 
> 
> _Whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life_. -- John 3:16
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live. And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die. -_- John 11:25-26
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Yeah, I thought so ... everybody goes to heaven ... God so loves His creation ...


----------



## ReinyDays

Grumblenuts said:


> Teach: "Shaken. Not stirred. Oh, yeah":
> 
> 
> 
> 2CH4 (g) + 1/2O2 (g) ----> C 2 H 6 (g) + H2O (g)
> 
> when you use the bond enthalapies to estimate Delta H for this reaction, The net enthalpy of the reaction is then negative (~200 + 60 -240 -100 = -80 kcal/mol) so more  thermodynamically favourable.
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts: "Favorable, dammit. Speak English!"
> Bond, James Bond: "Thank you so much. I get it now ! Thanks"
> Grumblenuts: "Oh, jeez. Try to be a man? For once in your life?!"
Click to expand...


A BIG kiss for yarding this up for me ... that saves me from having to post it for James ... glad someone has my back because it's been 45 years since I took chemistry ...


----------



## Grumblenuts

No sweat


----------



## JoeB131

ReinyDays said:


> Yeah, I thought so ... everybody goes to heaven ... God so loves His creation ...



Actually, quite the contrary, Christian Heaven is really hard to get into....


----------



## ReinyDays

JoeB131 said:


> Actually, quite the contrary, Christian Heaven is really hard to get into....



You must be using a different Bible then ...


----------



## JoeB131

ReinyDays said:


> You must be using a different Bible then ...



This is true... I use the bible that actually is, you just swallow the Disney Version they preach on Sunday.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

JoeB131 said:


> ReinyDays said:
> 
> 
> 
> You must be using a different Bible then ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is true... I use the bible that actually is, you just swallow the Disney Version they preach on Sunday.
Click to expand...

Haha, says every single person who reads the iron aged handbook. Or any religious text.


----------



## ReinyDays

JoeB131 said:


> ReinyDays said:
> 
> 
> 
> You must be using a different Bible then ...
> 
> 
> 
> This is true... I use the bible that actually is, you just swallow the Disney Version they preach on Sunday.
Click to expand...


Does your Bible say "let it be on Earth as it is in Heaven" ... or do you just not understand what that means? ...


----------



## JoeB131

ReinyDays said:


> Does your Bible say "let it be on Earth as it is in Heaven" ... or do you just not understand what that means? ...



It doesn't say that at all.  What it says is, "Let thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven".


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

JoeB131 said:


> ReinyDays said:
> 
> 
> 
> Does your Bible say "let it be on Earth as it is in Heaven" ... or do you just not understand what that means? ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It doesn't say that at all.  What it says is, "Let thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven".
Click to expand...

That is one of the oddest quotes from the bible. Why would an omnipotent god need to endorse himself publicly like this? Talk about vain and insecure. God needs therapy.


----------



## ReinyDays

JoeB131 said:


> ReinyDays said:
> 
> 
> 
> Does your Bible say "let it be on Earth as it is in Heaven" ... or do you just not understand what that means? ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It doesn't say that at all.  What it says is, "Let thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven".
Click to expand...


But you don't understand why that is so ...


----------



## jackflash

GLASNOST said:


> jackflash said:
> 
> 
> 
> Religion = belief. Belief = acceptance. Acceptance = evolution. Evolution = acceptance. Acceptance = belief. Belief = religion.
> 
> There are no atheists as you can see *EVERYONE has a religion ONE WAY OR THE OTHER.* I believe it was Dr. Stephen Hawking that said "Sometimes one has to use reverse engineering to verify the answer".
> 
> 
> 
> I disagree. You say "Belief = religion". OK, but .....
> 
> A religious person *believes* in God (for example). *"Belief = religion"*
> An Atheist *believes* there is no God.* "Belief = religion"*
> An agnostic *doesn't believe* in anything. *No belief, no religion.*
Click to expand...

GLASNOST, you hit the target but not dead center of the target...





__





						agnostic definition - Google Search
					





					www.google.com
				




An agnostic will believe empirical evidence but not suggestive theory/logic.





__





						empirical definition - Google Search
					





					www.google.com


----------



## Grumblenuts

ReinyDays said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ReinyDays said:
> 
> 
> 
> Does your Bible say "let it be on Earth as it is in Heaven" ... or do you just not understand what that means? ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It doesn't say that at all.  What it says is, "Let thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But you don't understand why that is so ...
Click to expand...

Could it be... SATAN!?

Or do you just not feel like admitting you screwed it up and got schooled?


----------



## JoeB131

ReinyDays said:


> But you don't understand why that is so ...



I actually understand it perfectly, it's an endorsement of theocracy.   Dammit, when God says Jump, you say how high.   



Fort Fun Indiana said:


> That is one of the oddest quotes from the bible. Why would an omnipotent god need to endorse himself publicly like this? Talk about vain and insecure. God needs therapy.



The God of the Bible is fantastically needy, when you think about it.


----------



## ReinyDays

JoeB131 said:


> I actually understand it perfectly, it's an endorsement of theocracy.



A legend in your own mind ... [giggle] ... oh perfect one, tell us truly why the meek will inherit the Earth? ...


----------



## danielpalos

...no.  It is because alleged Theists cannot seem to Obey a few simple Commandments from God.  Capitalism is the Proof.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

JoeB131 said:


> ReinyDays said:
> 
> 
> 
> But you don't understand why that is so ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I actually understand it perfectly, it's an endorsement of theocracy.   Dammit, when God says Jump, you say how high.
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is one of the oddest quotes from the bible. Why would an omnipotent god need to endorse himself publicly like this? Talk about vain and insecure. God needs therapy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The God of the Bible is fantastically needy, when you think about it.
Click to expand...

He is. One might start to think it is actually God who was "created" in the image of man.


----------



## LittleNipper

JoeB131 said:


> ReinyDays said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good thing it doesn't say that in the Bible, unless I'm mistaken ... have a passage or chapter in mind? ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yup.  Ann Frank went to hell.
> 
> _In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ: Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction_. 2 Thessalonians 1:8-9
> 
> Jeff Dahmner went to Heaven.
> 
> 
> 
> _Whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life_. -- John 3:16
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live. And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die. -_- John 11:25-26
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...




JoeB131 said:


> ReinyDays said:
> 
> 
> 
> But you don't understand why that is so ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I actually understand it perfectly, it's an endorsement of theocracy.   Dammit, when God says Jump, you say how high.
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is one of the oddest quotes from the bible. Why would an omnipotent god need to endorse himself publicly like this? Talk about vain and insecure. God needs therapy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The God of the Bible is fantastically needy, when you think about it.
Click to expand...

GOD doesn't need us. We need HIM! Thanks be to GOD that HE cared enough to redeem whosoever will.


----------



## LittleNipper

JoeB131 said:


> ReinyDays said:
> 
> 
> 
> But you don't understand why that is so ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I actually understand it perfectly, it's an endorsement of theocracy.   Dammit, when God says Jump, you say how high.
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is one of the oddest quotes from the bible. Why would an omnipotent god need to endorse himself publicly like this? Talk about vain and insecure. God needs therapy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The God of the Bible is fantastically needy, when you think about it.
Click to expand...

You really don't understand the implication here. Abraham believed that GOD's plan was to raise Isaac from the dead. Even Isaac, who was a teen by that time (Abraham was a very old man) did nothing --- because he believed it too. They thought that they were fulfilling the prophecy GOD made to Adam.


----------



## LittleNipper

JoeB131 said:


> ReinyDays said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, I thought so ... everybody goes to heaven ... God so loves His creation ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, quite the contrary, Christian Heaven is really hard to get into....
Click to expand...

Heaven is open to all who believe.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

LittleNipper said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ReinyDays said:
> 
> 
> 
> But you don't understand why that is so ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I actually understand it perfectly, it's an endorsement of theocracy.   Dammit, when God says Jump, you say how high.
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is one of the oddest quotes from the bible. Why would an omnipotent god need to endorse himself publicly like this? Talk about vain and insecure. God needs therapy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The God of the Bible is fantastically needy, when you think about it.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You really don't understand the implication here. Abraham believed that GOD's plan was to raise Isaac from the dead. Even Isaac, who was a teen by that time (Abraham was a very old man) did nothing --- because he believed it too. They thought that they were fulfilling the prophecy GOD made to Adam.
Click to expand...

Why are we talking about this magical nonsense in the science section? the only discussions about the Bible to be had in the science section are about how it was created by humans, and when, and why so much of the magical nonsense contained within is clearly false.


----------



## LittleNipper

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ReinyDays said:
> 
> 
> 
> But you don't understand why that is so ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I actually understand it perfectly, it's an endorsement of theocracy.   Dammit, when God says Jump, you say how high.
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is one of the oddest quotes from the bible. Why would an omnipotent god need to endorse himself publicly like this? Talk about vain and insecure. God needs therapy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The God of the Bible is fantastically needy, when you think about it.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You really don't understand the implication here. Abraham believed that GOD's plan was to raise Isaac from the dead. Even Isaac, who was a teen by that time (Abraham was a very old man) did nothing --- because he believed it too. They thought that they were fulfilling the prophecy GOD made to Adam.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why are we talking about this magical nonsense in the science section? the only discussions about the Bible to be had in the science section are about how it was created by humans, and when, and why so much of the magical nonsense contained within is clearly false.
Click to expand...

Certainly there is nothing wrong with a discussion of the supernatural. There is no magic when it come to GOD, only the supernatural.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

LittleNipper said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ReinyDays said:
> 
> 
> 
> But you don't understand why that is so ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I actually understand it perfectly, it's an endorsement of theocracy.   Dammit, when God says Jump, you say how high.
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is one of the oddest quotes from the bible. Why would an omnipotent god need to endorse himself publicly like this? Talk about vain and insecure. God needs therapy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The God of the Bible is fantastically needy, when you think about it.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You really don't understand the implication here. Abraham believed that GOD's plan was to raise Isaac from the dead. Even Isaac, who was a teen by that time (Abraham was a very old man) did nothing --- because he believed it too. They thought that they were fulfilling the prophecy GOD made to Adam.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why are we talking about this magical nonsense in the science section? the only discussions about the Bible to be had in the science section are about how it was created by humans, and when, and why so much of the magical nonsense contained within is clearly false.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Certainly there is nothing wrong with a discussion of the supernatural. There is no magic when it come to GOD, only the supernatural.
Click to expand...

It just doesnt belong in the natural section. It belongs in the supernatural section (religion).

And yes, supernatural = magic. You just dont like the word, bevause it places your preferred magic on the same shelf as any other. Where it belongs.


----------



## LittleNipper

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ReinyDays said:
> 
> 
> 
> But you don't understand why that is so ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I actually understand it perfectly, it's an endorsement of theocracy.   Dammit, when God says Jump, you say how high.
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is one of the oddest quotes from the bible. Why would an omnipotent god need to endorse himself publicly like this? Talk about vain and insecure. God needs therapy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The God of the Bible is fantastically needy, when you think about it.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You really don't understand the implication here. Abraham believed that GOD's plan was to raise Isaac from the dead. Even Isaac, who was a teen by that time (Abraham was a very old man) did nothing --- because he believed it too. They thought that they were fulfilling the prophecy GOD made to Adam.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why are we talking about this magical nonsense in the science section? the only discussions about the Bible to be had in the science section are about how it was created by humans, and when, and why so much of the magical nonsense contained within is clearly false.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Certainly there is nothing wrong with a discussion of the supernatural. There is no magic when it come to GOD, only the supernatural.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It just doesnt belong in the natural section. It belongs in the supernatural section (religion).
> 
> And yes, supernatural = magic. You just dont like the word, bevause it places your preferred magic on the same shelf as any other. Where it belongs.
Click to expand...

 There is a difference between supernatural and magic.
*supernatural*
*adjective*
of, relating to, or being above or beyond what is natural; unexplainable by natural law or phenomena; abnormal.

Where as the best definition of magic is as follows: _Magic pertaining to_ the art of producing illusions as entertainment by the use of sleight of hand, distraction, deception, trickery.

Magic while baffling can be explained --- humanly speaking; whereas, the supernatural is beyond human comprehension.


----------



## GLASNOST

jackflash said:


> GLASNOST said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jackflash said:
> 
> 
> 
> Religion = belief. Belief = acceptance. Acceptance = evolution. Evolution = acceptance. Acceptance = belief. Belief = religion.
> 
> There are no atheists as you can see *EVERYONE has a religion ONE WAY OR THE OTHER.* I believe it was Dr. Stephen Hawking that said "Sometimes one has to use reverse engineering to verify the answer".
> 
> 
> 
> I disagree. You say "Belief = religion". OK, but .....
> 
> A religious person *believes* in God (for example). *"Belief = religion"*
> An Atheist *believes* there is no God.* "Belief = religion"*
> An agnostic *doesn't believe* in anything. *No belief, no religion.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> GLASNOST, you hit the target but not dead center of the target...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> agnostic definition - Google Search
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.google.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> An agnostic will believe empirical evidence but not suggestive theory/logic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> empirical definition - Google Search
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.google.com
Click to expand...

The Google definition is incorrect.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

LittleNipper said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ReinyDays said:
> 
> 
> 
> But you don't understand why that is so ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I actually understand it perfectly, it's an endorsement of theocracy.   Dammit, when God says Jump, you say how high.
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is one of the oddest quotes from the bible. Why would an omnipotent god need to endorse himself publicly like this? Talk about vain and insecure. God needs therapy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The God of the Bible is fantastically needy, when you think about it.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You really don't understand the implication here. Abraham believed that GOD's plan was to raise Isaac from the dead. Even Isaac, who was a teen by that time (Abraham was a very old man) did nothing --- because he believed it too. They thought that they were fulfilling the prophecy GOD made to Adam.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why are we talking about this magical nonsense in the science section? the only discussions about the Bible to be had in the science section are about how it was created by humans, and when, and why so much of the magical nonsense contained within is clearly false.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Certainly there is nothing wrong with a discussion of the supernatural. There is no magic when it come to GOD, only the supernatural.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It just doesnt belong in the natural section. It belongs in the supernatural section (religion).
> 
> And yes, supernatural = magic. You just dont like the word, bevause it places your preferred magic on the same shelf as any other. Where it belongs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is a difference between supernatural and magic.
> *supernatural*
> *adjective*
> of, relating to, or being above or beyond what is natural; unexplainable by natural law or phenomena; abnormal.
> 
> Where as the best definition of magic is as follows: _Magic pertaining to_ the art of producing illusions as entertainment by the use of sleight of hand, distraction, deception, trickery.
> 
> Magic while baffling can be explained --- humanly speaking; whereas, the supernatural is beyond human comprehension.
Click to expand...

Magic and Supernatural are synonyms in the English language. Maybe you are speaking in tongues again?  hehe


----------



## james bond

JoeB131 said:


> Yup. Ann Frank went to hell.
> 
> _In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ: Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction_. 2 Thessalonians 1:8-9
> 
> Jeff Dahmner went to Heaven.



LOL.  Both are in Hades.  You know nothing and think you're "like God."

Besides, this is S&T.  What a kook you are.  You want aliens and multiverses.



JoeB131 said:


> The God of the Bible is fantastically needy, when you think about it.



How else can you explain that everyone has to dance with the reaper?

If ToE is true, then our life spans should be getting longer not shorter.


----------



## Damaged Eagle

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> The _only_ way for the big bang and life to begin and happen is God, the creator.
> 
> 
> 
> Says you. You are free to think that. But you kind of embarrass yourself when you demand others adopt your iron aged nonsense. And this has no place in the science section.
Click to expand...






It did take God to create all for God is all.

*****SMILE*****


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Damaged Eagle said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> The _only_ way for the big bang and life to begin and happen is God, the creator.
> 
> 
> 
> Says you. You are free to think that. But you kind of embarrass yourself when you demand others adopt your iron aged nonsense. And this has no place in the science section.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> View attachment 428432
> 
> It did take God to create all for God is all.
> 
> *****SMILE*****
Click to expand...

Nah, no it didn't.


----------



## james bond

GLASNOST said:


> The Google definition is incorrect.



"a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God."

The above is correct.  You failed the lie detector test.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

james bond said:


> GLASNOST said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Google definition is incorrect.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God."
> 
> The above is correct.  You failed the lie detector test.
Click to expand...

But that defintion is not sufficient. One can have disbelief in gods and any other magical hooha, but atill not claim to know with certainty that they do not exist. That person is still an agnostic.


----------



## james bond

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> But that defintion is not sufficient. One can have disbelief in gods and any other magical hooha, but atill not claim to know with certainty that they do not exist. That person is still an agnostic.



Nope.  Then one is a farked up stupid atheist like you.


----------



## james bond

>>"Let thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven".<<

I love that verse.  "Your kingdom come, your will be done, on earth as it is in heaven." Matthew 6:10


----------



## Damaged Eagle

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> The _only_ way for the big bang and life to begin and happen is God, the creator.
> 
> 
> 
> Says you. You are free to think that. But you kind of embarrass yourself when you demand others adopt your iron aged nonsense. And this has no place in the science section.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> View attachment 428432
> 
> It did take God to create all for God is all.
> 
> *****SMILE*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nah, no it didn't.
Click to expand...






Sounds like you're discriminating against my beliefs about the universe.

The universe could not exist without God.

*****HAPPY SMILE*****


----------



## GLASNOST

james bond said:


> GLASNOST said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Google definition is incorrect.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God."
> 
> The above is correct.  You failed the lie detector test.
Click to expand...

You failed the IQ test. You are an idiot.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Damaged Eagle said:


> Sounds like you're discriminating against my beliefs about the universe.


Well yes, you think that because you internalize these beliefs. You must do so, because you have nothing but "because I say so" to support the truth of them. So they become you. Their credibility is now inseparable from your own, by your own design. So you see disagreement that they are true as some sort of personal attack. These are your problems to deal with, not mine.


----------



## GLASNOST

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GLASNOST said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Google definition is incorrect.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God."
> 
> The above is correct.  You failed the lie detector test.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But that defintion is not sufficient. One can have disbelief in gods and any other magical hooha, but atill not claim to know with certainty that they do not exist. That person is still an agnostic.
Click to expand...

Very good!  But let me add one detail. *"One can ..."* *lack "... belief in gods and any other magical hooha, but atill not claim to know with certainty that they do not exist. That person is still an agnostic."*


----------



## GLASNOST

james bond said:


> I love that verse.  "Your kingdom come, your will be done, on earth as it is in heaven." Matthew 6:10


I love this verse._ "Nah, no it didn't." _
*Fort Fun Indiana * page 25:492


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

GLASNOST said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GLASNOST said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Google definition is incorrect.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God."
> 
> The above is correct.  You failed the lie detector test.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But that defintion is not sufficient. One can have disbelief in gods and any other magical hooha, but atill not claim to know with certainty that they do not exist. That person is still an agnostic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Very good!  But let me add one detail. *"One can ..."* *lack "... belief in gods and any other magical hooha, but atill not claim to know with certainty that they do not exist. That person is still an agnostic."*
Click to expand...

Agreed. And these people are not just agnostic, but also atheist. The old definitions just don't suffice. All are agnostic, who cannot claim to be absolutely certain that gods do not exist but do not accept belief in gods. These people are also all atheists, as they lack belief in gods. So there are agnostic atheists and _gnostic _atheists, who claim to KNOW there are no gods. All agnostics are atheists. There are only theists and atheists. There are no agnostic theists, because agnostics, by definition, do not accept belief in gods.

So really, the terms theist and atheist will suffice. Unless we are talking about the special case of _gnostic atheists, _ which will then mandate use of the term "gnostic atheists". It is the special case of atheism. We don't have to use the term "agnostic atheist", just as we don't have to use the term, "non-square rectangle" (squares being the special case of rectangles). We can just say, "rectangle", unless the situation calls for the distinction. In fact, we rarely need to use the word "agnostic" at all!


----------



## Damaged Eagle

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds like you're discriminating against my beliefs about the universe.
> 
> 
> 
> Well yes, you think that because you internalize these beliefs. You must do so, because you have nothing but "because I say so" to support the truth of them. So they become you. Their credibility is now inseparable from your own, by your own design. So you see disagreement that they are true as some sort of personal attack. These are your problems to deal with, not mine.
Click to expand...






I have no need for internalization. The truth of the matter is you deny the proof of Gods existence that lies plainly before you to observe and understand. You need look no further than to allow your very senses experience Gods very existence yet you deny the epiphany of that simple revelation.

*****CHUCKLE*****


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Damaged Eagle said:


> I have no need for internalization. The truth of the matter is you deny the proof of Gods existence that lies plainly before you to observe and understand. You need look no further than to allow your very senses experience Gods very existence yet you deny the epiphany of that simple revelation.


So EVERYTHING is evidence. And nothing can be "evidence against". Ever. By definition. You are partially right, in that I don't allow myself to accept such a childish, anti-intellectual, circular regression of tautology.


----------



## Damaged Eagle

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> GLASNOST said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GLASNOST said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Google definition is incorrect.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God."
> 
> The above is correct.  You failed the lie detector test.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But that defintion is not sufficient. One can have disbelief in gods and any other magical hooha, but atill not claim to know with certainty that they do not exist. That person is still an agnostic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Very good!  But let me add one detail. *"One can ..."* *lack "... belief in gods and any other magical hooha, but atill not claim to know with certainty that they do not exist. That person is still an agnostic."*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Agreed. And these people are not just agnostic, but also atheist. The old definitions just don't suffice. All are agnostic, who cannot claim to be absolutely certain that gods do not exist but do not accept belief in gods. These people are also all atheists, as they lack belief in gods. So there are agnostic atheists and _gnostic _atheists, who claim to KNOW there are no gods. All agnostics are atheists. There are only theists and atheists. There are no agnostic theists, because agnostics, by definition, do not accept belief in gods.
> 
> So really, the terms theist and atheist will suffice. Unless we are talking about the special case of _gnostic atheists, _ which will then mandate use of the term "gnostic atheists". It is the special case of atheism. We don't have to use the term "agnostic atheist", just as we don't have to use the term, "non-square rectangle" (squares being the special case of rectangles). We can just say, "rectangle", unless the situation calls for the distinction. In fact, we rarely need to use the word "agnostic" at all!
Click to expand...






You missed one.

*****CHUCKLE*****


----------



## Damaged Eagle

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have no need for internalization. The truth of the matter is you deny the proof of Gods existence that lies plainly before you to observe and understand. You need look no further than to allow your very senses experience Gods very existence yet you deny the epiphany of that simple revelation.
> 
> 
> 
> So EVERYTHING is evidence. And nothing can be "evidence against". Ever. By definition. You are partially right, in that I don't allow myself to accept such a childish, anti-intellectual, circular regression of tautology.
Click to expand...






No.

*****CHUCKLE*****


----------



## GLASNOST

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> GLASNOST said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GLASNOST said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Google definition is incorrect.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God."
> 
> The above is correct.  You failed the lie detector test.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But that defintion is not sufficient. One can have disbelief in gods and any other magical hooha, but atill not claim to know with certainty that they do not exist. That person is still an agnostic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Very good!  But let me add one detail. *"One can ..."* *lack "... belief in gods and any other magical hooha, but atill not claim to know with certainty that they do not exist. That person is still an agnostic."*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Agreed. And these people are not just agnostic, but also atheist. The old definitions just don't suffice. All are agnostic, who cannot claim to be absolutely certain that gods do not exist but do not accept belief in gods. These people are also all atheists, as they lack belief in gods. So there are agnostic atheists and _gnostic _atheists, who claim to KNOW there are no gods. All agnostics are atheists. There are only theists and atheists. There are no agnostic theists, because agnostics, by definition, do not accept belief in gods.
> 
> So really, the terms theist and atheist will suffice. Unless we are talking about the special case of _gnostic atheists, _ which will then mandate use of the term "gnostic atheists". It is the special case of atheism. We don't have to use the term "agnostic atheist", just as we don't have to use the term, "non-square rectangle" (squares being the special case of rectangles). We can just say, "rectangle", unless the situation calls for the distinction. In fact, we rarely need to use the word "agnostic" at all!
Click to expand...

No. An atheist disbelieves while an agnostic has no such conviction. I am an agnostic myself. I am not convinced that there is no god but I am equally undecided about there being one.  The definition that is being played with is incorrect by way of it being incomplete. It ought to be a simple task of putting it right but for some reason, it hasn't surfaced. Well, if you agree that someone with my beliefs/disbeliefs are valid then you can see for yourself that a proper definition hasn't been presented.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Damaged Eagle said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have no need for internalization. The truth of the matter is you deny the proof of Gods existence that lies plainly before you to observe and understand. You need look no further than to allow your very senses experience Gods very existence yet you deny the epiphany of that simple revelation.
> 
> 
> 
> So EVERYTHING is evidence. And nothing can be "evidence against". Ever. By definition. You are partially right, in that I don't allow myself to accept such a childish, anti-intellectual, circular regression of tautology.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> View attachment 428452
> 
> No.
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
Click to expand...

Oh really? Then give me an example of something that would be evidence against the truth of the existence of your favorite god, or against the idea that he made everything. We don't have time for all the gods. let's focus on yours.


So... your example?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

GLASNOST said:


> An atheist disbelieves while an agnostic has no such conviction.


I expand atheist to be anyone who does not accept a belief in gods.


----------



## Damaged Eagle

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have no need for internalization. The truth of the matter is you deny the proof of Gods existence that lies plainly before you to observe and understand. You need look no further than to allow your very senses experience Gods very existence yet you deny the epiphany of that simple revelation.
> 
> 
> 
> So EVERYTHING is evidence. And nothing can be "evidence against". Ever. By definition. You are partially right, in that I don't allow myself to accept such a childish, anti-intellectual, circular regression of tautology.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> View attachment 428452
> 
> No.
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh really? Then give me an example of something that would be evidence against the truth of the existence of your favorite god, or against the idea that he made everything. We don't have time for all the gods. let's focus on yours.
> 
> 
> So... your example?
Click to expand...






If there was nothing.

*****CHUCKLE*****


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Damaged Eagle said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have no need for internalization. The truth of the matter is you deny the proof of Gods existence that lies plainly before you to observe and understand. You need look no further than to allow your very senses experience Gods very existence yet you deny the epiphany of that simple revelation.
> 
> 
> 
> So EVERYTHING is evidence. And nothing can be "evidence against". Ever. By definition. You are partially right, in that I don't allow myself to accept such a childish, anti-intellectual, circular regression of tautology.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> View attachment 428452
> 
> No.
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh really? Then give me an example of something that would be evidence against the truth of the existence of your favorite god, or against the idea that he made everything. We don't have time for all the gods. let's focus on yours.
> 
> 
> So... your example?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> View attachment 428453
> 
> If there was nothing.
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
Click to expand...

So you jusy agreed with me. There is mothing that could ever be evidence. Eberything is always evidence. Fine by me. Believe what you like. Just spare us the dog and pony show of pretending these beliefs are evidence based, when everything is always be evidence and nothing can be evidence against. You arent basing anything on evidence and dont get to make that claim with any honesty. Especially not in the science section. That faith-based preening goes in the religion section.


----------



## GLASNOST

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> GLASNOST said:
> 
> 
> 
> An atheist disbelieves while an agnostic has no such conviction.
> 
> 
> 
> I expand atheist to be anyone who does not accept a belief in gods.
Click to expand...

I say that an atheist has a conviction: "There is no god."
A theist has a conviction: "There is a God."
Agnostic says: "How the hell should I know one way or the other?"


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

GLASNOST said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GLASNOST said:
> 
> 
> 
> An atheist disbelieves while an agnostic has no such conviction.
> 
> 
> 
> I expand atheist to be anyone who does not accept a belief in gods.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I say that an atheist has a conviction: "There is no god."
> A theist has a conviction: "There is a God."
> Agnostic says: "How the hell should I know one way or the other?"
Click to expand...

Which would result in very few actual atheists, and you wouldnt be able to tell them from agnostics without interrogations. Both agnostics and atheists would be secular. Both would reject belief in gods. Easier and just as clear would be  to call them all atheists, with a subset of gnostic atheists as the special case that is invoked, when necessary.


----------



## Damaged Eagle

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> .....There are only theists and atheists.....







I repeat... You missed one.

*****CHUCKLE*****


----------



## GLASNOST

Damaged Eagle said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have no need for internalization. The truth of the matter is you deny the proof of Gods existence that lies plainly before you to observe and understand. You need look no further than to allow your very senses experience Gods very existence yet you deny the epiphany of that simple revelation.
> 
> 
> 
> So EVERYTHING is evidence. And nothing can be "evidence against". Ever. By definition. You are partially right, in that I don't allow myself to accept such a childish, anti-intellectual, circular regression of tautology.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh really? Then give me an example of something that would be evidence against the truth of the existence of your favorite god, or against the idea that he made everything. We don't have time for all the gods. let's focus on yours.
> 
> 
> So... your example?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If there was nothing.
Click to expand...

Yeah, good idea, let's take Billy Preston's advice ... he died in a drug rehabilitation clinic.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Damaged Eagle said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> .....There are only theists and atheists.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 428454
> 
> I repeat... You missed one.
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
Click to expand...

You are a viking, whem it comes to repeating yourself.


----------



## GLASNOST

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> GLASNOST said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GLASNOST said:
> 
> 
> 
> An atheist disbelieves while an agnostic has no such conviction.
> 
> 
> 
> I expand atheist to be anyone who does not accept a belief in gods.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I say that an atheist has a conviction: "There is no god."
> A theist has a conviction: "There is a God."
> Agnostic says: "How the hell should I know one way or the other?"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which would result in very few actual atheists, and you wouldnt be able to tell them from agnostics without interrogations. Both agnostics and atheists would be secular. Both would reject belief in gods. Easier and just as clear would be  to call them all atheists, with a subset of gnostic atheists as the special case that is invoked, when necessary.
Click to expand...

Sorry, but it doesn't wash. Slice it and package it as you like but I am not an atheist.


----------



## Damaged Eagle

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have no need for internalization. The truth of the matter is you deny the proof of Gods existence that lies plainly before you to observe and understand. You need look no further than to allow your very senses experience Gods very existence yet you deny the epiphany of that simple revelation.
> 
> 
> 
> So EVERYTHING is evidence. And nothing can be "evidence against". Ever. By definition. You are partially right, in that I don't allow myself to accept such a childish, anti-intellectual, circular regression of tautology.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> View attachment 428452
> 
> No.
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh really? Then give me an example of something that would be evidence against the truth of the existence of your favorite god, or against the idea that he made everything. We don't have time for all the gods. let's focus on yours.
> 
> 
> So... your example?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> View attachment 428453
> 
> If there was nothing.
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you jusy agreed with me. There is mothing that could ever be evidence. Eberything is always evidence. Fine by me. Believe what you like. Just spare us the dog and pony show of pretending these beliefs are evidence based, when everything is always be evidence and nothing can be evidence against. You arent basing anything on evidence and dont get to make that claim with any honesty. Especially not in the science section. That faith-based preening goes in the religion section.
Click to expand...






The only dog and pony show here is yours and your lack of seeing what is self evident.

*****CHUCKLE*****


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

GLASNOST said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GLASNOST said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GLASNOST said:
> 
> 
> 
> An atheist disbelieves while an agnostic has no such conviction.
> 
> 
> 
> I expand atheist to be anyone who does not accept a belief in gods.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I say that an atheist has a conviction: "There is no god."
> A theist has a conviction: "There is a God."
> Agnostic says: "How the hell should I know one way or the other?"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which would result in very few actual atheists, and you wouldnt be able to tell them from agnostics without interrogations. Both agnostics and atheists would be secular. Both would reject belief in gods. Easier and just as clear would be  to call them all atheists, with a subset of gnostic atheists as the special case that is invoked, when necessary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sorry, but it doesn't wash. Slice it and package it as you like but I am not an atheist.
Click to expand...

Neither am i, by the definitions you like. Very few are.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Damaged Eagle said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have no need for internalization. The truth of the matter is you deny the proof of Gods existence that lies plainly before you to observe and understand. You need look no further than to allow your very senses experience Gods very existence yet you deny the epiphany of that simple revelation.
> 
> 
> 
> So EVERYTHING is evidence. And nothing can be "evidence against". Ever. By definition. You are partially right, in that I don't allow myself to accept such a childish, anti-intellectual, circular regression of tautology.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> View attachment 428452
> 
> No.
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh really? Then give me an example of something that would be evidence against the truth of the existence of your favorite god, or against the idea that he made everything. We don't have time for all the gods. let's focus on yours.
> 
> 
> So... your example?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> View attachment 428453
> 
> If there was nothing.
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you jusy agreed with me. There is mothing that could ever be evidence. Eberything is always evidence. Fine by me. Believe what you like. Just spare us the dog and pony show of pretending these beliefs are evidence based, when everything is always be evidence and nothing can be evidence against. You arent basing anything on evidence and dont get to make that claim with any honesty. Especially not in the science section. That faith-based preening goes in the religion section.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> View attachment 428456
> 
> The only dog and pony show here is yours and your lack of seeing what is self evident.
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
Click to expand...

Of course it is "self evident", when it is everything, and everything can only be evidence for, and nothing can be evidence against. It's a rigged game. I feel like you are about to try to sell me a vacuum. Or a special tincture for gonhorrea, from the back of a wooden horsecart.


----------



## GLASNOST

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Both agnostics and atheists would ..... reject belief in gods.


This is false.



Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Easier and just as clear would be to call them all atheists ....


I've already told you that I am not an atheist. Are you illiterate?


----------



## Damaged Eagle

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> .....There are only theists and atheists.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 428454
> 
> I repeat... You missed one.
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are a viking, whem it comes to repeating yourself.
Click to expand...







You're the one that didn't address the issue.

In addition to theists and atheists there are the pantheists.

Your denial of their existence is telling.

*****CHUCKLE*****


----------



## GLASNOST

Damaged Eagle said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> .....There are only theists and atheists.....
> 
> 
> 
> I repeat... You missed one.
Click to expand...

At least one.


----------



## Damaged Eagle

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have no need for internalization. The truth of the matter is you deny the proof of Gods existence that lies plainly before you to observe and understand. You need look no further than to allow your very senses experience Gods very existence yet you deny the epiphany of that simple revelation.
> 
> 
> 
> So EVERYTHING is evidence. And nothing can be "evidence against". Ever. By definition. You are partially right, in that I don't allow myself to accept such a childish, anti-intellectual, circular regression of tautology.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> View attachment 428452
> 
> No.
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh really? Then give me an example of something that would be evidence against the truth of the existence of your favorite god, or against the idea that he made everything. We don't have time for all the gods. let's focus on yours.
> 
> 
> So... your example?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> View attachment 428453
> 
> If there was nothing.
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you jusy agreed with me. There is mothing that could ever be evidence. Eberything is always evidence. Fine by me. Believe what you like. Just spare us the dog and pony show of pretending these beliefs are evidence based, when everything is always be evidence and nothing can be evidence against. You arent basing anything on evidence and dont get to make that claim with any honesty. Especially not in the science section. That faith-based preening goes in the religion section.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> View attachment 428456
> 
> The only dog and pony show here is yours and your lack of seeing what is self evident.
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course it is "self evident", when it is everything, and everything can only be evidence for, and nothing can be evidence against. It's a rigged game. I feel like you are about to try to sell me a vacuum. Or a special tincture for gonhorrea, from the back of a wooden horsecart.
Click to expand...






If you don't like the concept you're free to step out of Gods reality. I'm not sure exactly where that would be but since you're an atheist it shouldn't matter. I'm pretty sure it'll be dark there and you won't remember a thing. As for that last part I think someone sold that to you already.

*****CHUCKLE*****


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

GLASNOST said:


> I've already told you that I am not an atheist.


Yes, and i agree you and i both are not atheists, by the definitions you present. Which, of course, are by far more observed than the ones i present.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Damaged Eagle said:


> If you don't like the concept you're free to step out of Gods reality.


Thats what going to the science section is, my man. Go back to the religion section with the strident Muslims, and Buddhists, and Hindus, and Zoroastrians, and Christians.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Damaged Eagle said:


> In addition to theist and atheists there are the pantheists.


So, god is everything. But god doesn't care about us and doesnt interfere. Got it. I can't think of a single shred of usefulness of this information.  Outside of personal happiness, maybe. And hey, if it makes you happy, i am happy for your happiness. I mean that.


----------



## Damaged Eagle

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you don't like the concept you're free to step out of Gods reality.
> 
> 
> 
> Thats what going to the science section is, my man. Go back to the religion section with the strident Muslims, and Buddhists, and Hindus, and Zoroastrians, and Christians.
Click to expand...






With some of the voodoo crap that you call science I think it should be you posting in the Religious Forum.

Go ahead. Let's hear you post the mantra of your scientific religious beliefs again. Doesn't it go something like.... 

"The science is settled!"

Even though you have no firm proven scientific evidence to back it up.

*****CHUCKLE*****


----------



## Damaged Eagle

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> In addition to theist and atheists there are the pantheists.
> 
> 
> 
> So, god is everything. But god doesn't care about us and doesnt interfere. Got it. I can't think of a single shred of usefulness of this information.  Outside of personal happiness, maybe. And hey, if it makes you happy, i am happy for your happiness. I mean that.
Click to expand...






It gives me purpose in seeking the meaning of God through a study of the sciences.

Something that "The science is settled" religious mantra doesn't fulfill for me but might for the person chanting it if they are a low browed Panina.

*****CHUCKLE*****


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Damaged Eagle said:


> With some of the voodoo crap that you call science I think it should be you posting in the Religious Forum.


Well, it's what generally everyone calls science. Not just me. So you can go away.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Damaged Eagle said:


> It gives me purpose in seeking the meaning of God through a study of the sciences.


Okay, that's kind of cool. Really. But i dont see.how throwing out swaths of science wholesale, as you like to do, jives with that mission.


----------



## Damaged Eagle

Yes I know "the science is settled" for you.

What's the current, let's try this one, number on the Globa... I mean Climate Change theoretical model?

*****CHUCKLE*****


----------



## james bond

GLASNOST said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GLASNOST said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Google definition is incorrect.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God."
> 
> The above is correct.  You failed the lie detector test.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You failed the IQ test. You are an idiot.
Click to expand...


Everyone here knows you're the idiot because you admitted to be an ag and believe that nothing is known of the existence or the nature of God when...

the question was do you believe in *multiple universes and extra-terrestrial civilizations?*

What's the matter with you boy?


----------



## Damaged Eagle

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> It gives me purpose in seeking the meaning of God through a study of the sciences.
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, that's kind of cool. Really. But i dont see.how throwing out swaths of science wholesale, as you like to do, jives with that mission.
Click to expand...






While throwing out swaths of evidence wholesale, because it doesn't fit into the pretty pattern, jives with your mission.

*****SMILE*****


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Damaged Eagle said:


> Yes I know "the science is settled" for you


You reject entire swaths of science wholecloth. While simultaneously claiming it all proves your beliefs. You are like a fart in a skillet, as my Aunt Mary would say.


----------



## GLASNOST

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> GLASNOST said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've already told you that I am not an atheist.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, and i agree you and i both are not atheists, by the definitions you present. Which, of course, are by far more observed than the ones i present.
Click to expand...

Your problem is that you do not understand what agnosticism is (or means) and you refuse to acknowledge it so you insist on continuing to falsely call it atheism. Granted, the proper definition is generally misrepresented so you have no source of understanding, but the difference between dis-belief and non-belief ought to be enough for anyone (who understands English) to see the discrepancy even if the proper definition is scarce or completely unavailable. Use your head and think.


----------



## Grumblenuts

To me,

There's really no argument between agnostics and atheists because we are logically one and the same.
There's really no argument between pantheists and atheists because we are logically one and the same.
There's really no argument between scientists and atheists because we are logically one and the same.

To William Godwin, the distinction between atheism and pantheism seemed a preference for one group's observed cultural temperament over  the other's. Behavior over logic. I'm thinking "Art for arts sake, money for gods sake." Identity politics. Gaslighting.


> Influenced by Coleridge, Godwin became more of a pantheist than an atheist. He died at age 80 in 1836.
> 
> 
> 
> "The religions of the heathen world consisted principally in the practice of certain observances and ceremonies, and made them appeal to the senses. They do not obviously lead to debates and hostility of one religion to another. But the Christian religion is a religion of faith and dogmas. The opposite opinions of predestination and free-will, of faith and works, of a particular and a general providence ... unavoidably led to the engendering of much pertinaciousness and bitterness of controversy."
> —"Essays by the Late William Godwin," Henry S. King & Co. (1873)
> 
> 
> 
> Compiled by Annie Laurie Gaylor
Click to expand...


----------



## Grumblenuts

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> All are agnostic, who cannot claim to be absolutely certain that gods do not exist but do not accept belief in gods. These people are also all atheists, as they lack belief in gods. So there are agnostic atheists and _gnostic _atheists, who claim to KNOW there are no gods. All agnostics are atheists. There are only theists and atheists. There are no agnostic theists, because agnostics, by definition, do not accept belief in gods.


Bingo. However, the double negatives remain irritating and their use discouraged by linguists. Let's see if anything can be done:

All are agnostic who cannot claim to be absolutely certain that gods do not exist but do not accept belief in gods.
All are agnostic who can claim to be absolutely certain that gods do not exist but do accept belief in gods.
Progress? See I dunno. I always just picture agnostics running around like Sergeant Shultz shouting "I know nothink! Nothink!"
Their main feature (and failing imho) being adamantly non-committal. Like armadillos on a highway, telling themselves traffic isn't really a thing. Doing no good and gonna get run over.


----------



## JoeB131

ReinyDays said:


> A legend in your own mind ... [giggle] ... oh perfect one, tell us truly why the meek will inherit the Earth? ...



That was exactly the point of why Constantine chose Christianity to be a state religion.  "The Meek Shall Inherit the Earth, just be cool, don't complain, don't try to change anything.  You'll get your reward in the next life that never happens."


----------



## JoeB131

LittleNipper said:


> You really don't understand the implication here. Abraham believed that GOD's plan was to raise Isaac from the dead. Even Isaac, who was a teen by that time (Abraham was a very old man) did nothing --- because he believed it too. They thought that they were fulfilling the prophecy GOD made to Adam.



Actually, there's nothing in the text that indicates that God would raise Isaac from the Dead, or that Abe thought he would.  God was demanding a loyalty test from Abe, and he got one.  And it was kind of fucked up.


----------



## james bond

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Yes, and i agree you and i both are not atheists, by the definitions you present. Which, of course, are by far more observed than the ones i present.



Not really.  He may as well be atheist.  I lump them in the same.  Do you remember my this is fine dog?  Of course, you do.


----------



## james bond

JoeB131 said:


> Actually, there's nothing in the text that indicates that God would raise Isaac from the Dead, or that Abe thought he would. God was demanding a loyalty test from Abe, and he got one. And it was kind of fucked up.



You are quite wrong and in the wrong section.  It's usually atheists who want science to show them the truth and it does.






and we have the big bang to show for it.  There you go.


----------



## danielpalos

Some atheists want Theists to actually Obey a few simple Commandments from any convenient God they can supplicate to.


----------



## JoeB131

james bond said:


> Not really. He may as well be atheist. I lump them in the same. Do you remember my this is fine dog? Of course, you do.



So do you guys have anything other than vague bronze age threats?  



james bond said:


> You are quite wrong and in the wrong section. It's usually atheists who want science to show them the truth and it does.



Again, I refuse to beleive the universe is so poorly designed the messed up God of the Hebrews is in charge.


----------



## james bond

JoeB131 said:


> So do you guys have anything other than vague bronze age threats?



As a matter of fact, I do.  The circular logic science of atheists and ags.  This is why atheists/ags believe in multiverses.  Usually, I like to post _funny_ cartoons.  This one is hilarious.




JoeB131 said:


> Again, I refuse to beleive the universe is so poorly designed the messed up God of the Hebrews is in charge.



More circular logic.  This was supposed to be heaven, but for Adam and Eve's sin.  The truth book tells us (you got the lie book).  Otherwise, why did Jesus die on the cross?  Again, the truth book tells us.


----------



## danielpalos

What if, we really are in Nexus Six?


----------



## james bond

Do you want the creationist view of the Schrodinger's cat experiment and no multiverses?  The cat may be like a wave before we look in the box with our free will, but once we see, then there is only one universe.  There are no multiverses before looking.  There are no multiverses after looking.  

It means some things we don't know what happens until we look.  The box or light-slit experiment represents the future.  We  can't control what happens to the cat or where the wave ends up, i.e. it is what it is.  However, we can control what happens to _us_ in our future with our free will.


----------



## danielpalos

james bond said:


> Do you want the creationist view of the Schrodinger's cat experiment and no multiverses?  The cat may be like a wave before we look in the box with our free will, but once we see, then there is only one universe.  There are no multiverses before looking.  There are no multiverses after looking.
> 
> It means some things we don't know what happens until we look.  The box or light-slit experiment represents the future.  We  can't control what happens to the cat or where the wave ends up, i.e. it is what it is.  However, we can control what happens to _us_ in our future with our free will.


Why would that require a deity?


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, there's nothing in the text that indicates that God would raise Isaac from the Dead, or that Abe thought he would. God was demanding a loyalty test from Abe, and he got one. And it was kind of fucked up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are quite wrong and in the wrong section.  It's usually atheists who want science to show them the truth and it does.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and we have the big bang to show for it.  There you go.
Click to expand...


There is nothing in the Genesis fable that suggests your gods or anyone else's gods describes the expansion of the universe. Those hyper-religious types predisposed to partisan versions of supernatural gods might want to explain the billions of years that define the age of the universe versus the mere 6,000 years implied by the Bibles.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So do you guys have anything other than vague bronze age threats?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As a matter of fact, I do.  The circular logic science of atheists and ags.  This is why atheists/ags believe in multiverses.  Usually, I like to post _funny_ cartoons.  This one is hilarious.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, I refuse to beleive the universe is so poorly designed the messed up God of the Hebrews is in charge.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> More circular logic.  This was supposed to be heaven, but for Adam and Eve's sin.  The truth book tells us (you got the lie book).  Otherwise, why did Jesus die on the cross?  Again, the truth book tells us.
Click to expand...

Your ''twoof'' book describes a stationary, flat earth. Not much twoof in that.


----------



## ChemEngineer

evenflow1969 said:


> Blackrook said:
> 
> 
> 
> But belief in these theories are more wishful thinking than reality.
> 
> The concept that there are an infinite number of parallel universes is poppycock. Even if true, there will never be a way to prove it.
> 
> If extra-terrestrial civilizations existed, we'd know it by now. We've been listening for their radio signals for decades and in all that time we've heard squat.
> 
> The reality is that atheist scientists have pushed belief in these notions because they hate Christianity and want to undermine people's faith in religion.
> 
> 
> 
> Ya,waves experience disturbance and weeken (sic)  after distance traveled. So not exactly the smoking gun for not finding them. Aliens nor multi verse (sic)  preclude a creator.  These things can exist and still have been created by intelligent design. These things are more than possible according to mathematics. You wanna believe in the Bible do it. The aliens ain't gonna stop you. Neither am I.  So be so kind as to allow others to have their beliefs also.
Click to expand...


Atheists mock and ridicule Christians incessantly, in books, on the internet, and most particularly in courtrooms across America.  Atheists are always claiming they/you are smarter than anyone else.
Then you spell "weaken"  as "weeken" (sic).  You spell "multiverse" as two words. 
Now please pontificate to everyone how extremely brilliant and scientific you are, while we laugh at you.

The hypothesis that we are nothing more than cosmic accidents has been widely accepted by the scientific community. Figures as diverse as Bertrand Russell, Jacques Monod, Steven Weinberg, and Richard Dawkins have said it is so. It is an article of their faith, one advanced with the confidence of men convinced that nature has equipped them to face realities the rest of us cannot bear to contemplate. There is not the slightest reason to think this so. - _*The Devil's Delusion*_ by David Berlinski, page xiv


----------



## evenflow1969

ChemEngineer said:


> evenflow1969 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blackrook said:
> 
> 
> 
> But belief in these theories are more wishful thinking than reality.
> 
> The concept that there are an infinite number of parallel universes is poppycock. Even if true, there will never be a way to prove it.
> 
> If extra-terrestrial civilizations existed, we'd know it by now. We've been listening for their radio signals for decades and in all that time we've heard squat.
> 
> The reality is that atheist scientists have pushed belief in these notions because they hate Christianity and want to undermine people's faith in religion.
> 
> 
> 
> Ya,waves experience disturbance and weeken (sic)  after distance traveled. So not exactly the smoking gun for not finding them. Aliens nor multi verse (sic)  preclude a creator.  These things can exist and still have been created by intelligent design. These things are more than possible according to mathematics. You wanna believe in the Bible do it. The aliens ain't gonna stop you. Neither am I.  So be so kind as to allow others to have their beliefs also.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Atheists mock and ridicule Christians incessantly, in books, on the internet, and most particularly in courtrooms across America.  Atheists are always claiming they/you are smarter than anyone else.
> Then you spell "weaken"  as "weeken" (sic).  You spell "multiverse" as two words.
> Now please pontificate to everyone how extremely brilliant and scientific you are, while we laugh at you.
> 
> The hypothesis that we are nothing more than cosmic accidents has been widely accepted by the scientific community. Figures as diverse as Bertrand Russell, Jacques Monod, Steven Weinberg, and Richard Dawkins have said it is so. It is an article of their faith, one advanced with the confidence of men convinced that nature has equipped them to face realities the rest of us cannot bear to contemplate. There is not the slightest reason to think this so. - _*The Devil's Delusion*_ by David Berlinski, page xiv
Click to expand...

Spelling all ya got hilarious, also wrong all the way around not an atheist.  The odds of this all happening on accident are far to long to be possible with out intelligent manipulation.  Aliens and multi verse still does not preclude a maker . So go back to school dumb fuck and come back and tell me what do when ya get some thing right. This is a blog dumb fuck not a paper turned into prof. Love idiot with out logic yelling spelling and punctuation.  Lol.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

GLASNOST said:


> Your problem is that you do not understand what agnosticism is (or means) and you refuse to acknowledge it so you insist on continuing to falsely call it atheism.


Completely false. i completely acknowledge the meanings you present and have done so repeatedly. I am just proposing a semantic change. No idea where you are getting this nonsense. I think you need to slow down. Your excitability and childish insults discredit you, especially when you are completely wrong and misunderstanding others.


----------



## ChemEngineer

evenflow1969 said:


> ChemEngineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> evenflow1969 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blackrook said:
> 
> 
> 
> But belief in these theories are more wishful thinking than reality.
> 
> The concept that there are an infinite number of parallel universes is poppycock. Even if true, there will never be a way to prove it.
> 
> If extra-terrestrial civilizations existed, we'd know it by now. We've been listening for their radio signals for decades and in all that time we've heard squat.
> 
> The reality is that atheist scientists have pushed belief in these notions because they hate Christianity and want to undermine people's faith in religion.
> 
> 
> 
> Ya,waves experience disturbance and weeken (sic)  after distance traveled. So not exactly the smoking gun for not finding them. Aliens nor multi verse (sic)  preclude a creator.  These things can exist and still have been created by intelligent design. These things are more than possible according to mathematics. You wanna believe in the Bible do it. The aliens ain't gonna stop you. Neither am I.  So be so kind as to allow others to have their beliefs also.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Atheists mock and ridicule Christians incessantly, in books, on the internet, and most particularly in courtrooms across America.  Atheists are always claiming they/you are smarter than anyone else.
> Then you spell "weaken"  as "weeken" (sic).  You spell "multiverse" as two words.
> Now please pontificate to everyone how extremely brilliant and scientific you are, while we laugh at you.
> 
> The hypothesis that we are nothing more than cosmic accidents has been widely accepted by the scientific community. Figures as diverse as Bertrand Russell, Jacques Monod, Steven Weinberg, and Richard Dawkins have said it is so. It is an article of their faith, one advanced with the confidence of men convinced that nature has equipped them to face realities the rest of us cannot bear to contemplate. There is not the slightest reason to think this so. - _*The Devil's Delusion*_ by David Berlinski, page xiv
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Spelling all ya got hilarious, also wrong all the way around not an atheist.  The odds of this all happening on accident are far to long to be possible with out intelligent manipulation.  Aliens and multi verse still does not preclude a maker . So go back to school dumb fuck and come back and tell me what do when ya get some thing right. This is a blog dumb fuck not a paper turned into prof. Love idiot with out logic yelling spelling and punctuation.  Lol.
Click to expand...

You talk like a young, ignorant, vulgar punk.

The Bible advises us to "Go from the presence of a foolish man."

Join other ignorati on my Ignore List.

ciao brutto


----------



## evenflow1969

ChemEngineer said:


> evenflow1969 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChemEngineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> evenflow1969 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blackrook said:
> 
> 
> 
> But belief in these theories are more wishful thinking than reality.
> 
> The concept that there are an infinite number of parallel universes is poppycock. Even if true, there will never be a way to prove it.
> 
> If extra-terrestrial civilizations existed, we'd know it by now. We've been listening for their radio signals for decades and in all that time we've heard squat.
> 
> The reality is that atheist scientists have pushed belief in these notions because they hate Christianity and want to undermine people's faith in religion.
> 
> 
> 
> Ya,waves experience disturbance and weeken (sic)  after distance traveled. So not exactly the smoking gun for not finding them. Aliens nor multi verse (sic)  preclude a creator.  These things can exist and still have been created by intelligent design. These things are more than possible according to mathematics. You wanna believe in the Bible do it. The aliens ain't gonna stop you. Neither am I.  So be so kind as to allow others to have their beliefs also.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Atheists mock and ridicule Christians incessantly, in books, on the internet, and most particularly in courtrooms across America.  Atheists are always claiming they/you are smarter than anyone else.
> Then you spell "weaken"  as "weeken" (sic).  You spell "multiverse" as two words.
> Now please pontificate to everyone how extremely brilliant and scientific you are, while we laugh at you.
> 
> The hypothesis that we are nothing more than cosmic accidents has been widely accepted by the scientific community. Figures as diverse as Bertrand Russell, Jacques Monod, Steven Weinberg, and Richard Dawkins have said it is so. It is an article of their faith, one advanced with the confidence of men convinced that nature has equipped them to face realities the rest of us cannot bear to contemplate. There is not the slightest reason to think this so. - _*The Devil's Delusion*_ by David Berlinski, page xiv
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Spelling all ya got hilarious, also wrong all the way around not an atheist.  The odds of this all happening on accident are far to long to be possible with out intelligent manipulation.  Aliens and multi verse still does not preclude a maker . So go back to school dumb fuck and come back and tell me what do when ya get some thing right. This is a blog dumb fuck not a paper turned into prof. Love idiot with out logic yelling spelling and punctuation.  Lol.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You talk like a young, ignorant, vulgar punk.
> 
> The Bible advises us to "Go from the presence of a foolish man."
> 
> Join other ignorati on my Ignore List.
> 
> ciao brutto
Click to expand...

Ya I am fine with that. Lol! I wouldn't want to hurt your poor little feelings again.


----------



## JoeB131

james bond said:


> As a matter of fact, I do. The circular logic science of atheists and ags. This is why atheists/ags believe in multiverses. Usually, I like to post _funny_ cartoons. This one is hilarious.



Only to you.. I personally don't believe in multi-verses...    Although if I run into a version of myself with a goatee who is evil, I'll let you know.


----------



## JoeB131

james bond said:


> More circular logic. This was supposed to be heaven, but for Adam and Eve's sin. The truth book tells us (you got the lie book). Otherwise, why did Jesus die on the cross? Again, the truth book tells us.



Actually, those stories are kind of fucked up.  God gave Adam a test he knew he would almost certainly fail.  That sounds like a sadist, not a loving father.    Same thing with Jesus on the cross.   God declares a curse, and then has to kill himself/his son/ whatever to life it, kind of, but most of you are still going to hell anyway, depending on geography of course.  Fuck you, Japan, worshiping Amaterasu!!!


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, there's nothing in the text that indicates that God would raise Isaac from the Dead, or that Abe thought he would. God was demanding a loyalty test from Abe, and he got one. And it was kind of fucked up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are quite wrong and in the wrong section.  It's usually atheists who want science to show them the truth and it does.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and we have the big bang to show for it.  There you go.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is nothing in the Genesis fable that suggests your gods or anyone else's gods describes the expansion of the universe. Those hyper-religious types predisposed to partisan versions of supernatural gods might want to explain the billions of years that define the age of the universe versus the mere 6,000 years implied by the Bibles.
Click to expand...


" It is he who sits above the circle of the earth, and its inhabitants are like grasshoppers; who stretches out the heavens like a curtain, and spreads them like a tent to dwell in;" Isaiah 40:22

Such atheist stupidity and more this is fine thinking.

How does it feel, _grasshopper_, to always be wrong?  Red faced, head down, always feeling low?


----------



## Grumblenuts

Yep, it all really stems from property issues and appeasing fragile, grabby, violence prone, male egos in exchange for some fucked up sense of longer term security. Human control issues.  No one really cares about multiverses. Perhaps multiple verses?


----------



## james bond

JoeB131 said:


> Only to you.. I personally don't believe in multi-verses... Although if I run into a version of myself with a goatee who is evil, I'll let you know.



Good for you.  There are none.  Just our future ahead of us.



JoeB131 said:


> Actually, those stories are kind of fucked up. God gave Adam a test he knew he would almost certainly fail. That sounds like a sadist, not a loving father. Same thing with Jesus on the cross. God declares a curse, and then has to kill himself/his son/ whatever to life it, kind of, but most of you are still going to hell anyway, depending on geography of course. Fuck you, Japan, worshiping Amaterasu!!!



All Adam and Eve had to do was not act like God.  It wasn't a test as you put it, but the _one commandment_ that they could not do.  They were given free will. 

As for the rest, you sound like you are acting like God and will probably meet the same fate (going to hell, end up somewhere in mixed up geography, and being farked by Tojo or some backward thinking Jabba).  Were you in WW II?  Stationed in Hawaii?  Had to run for cover?


----------



## james bond

Grumblenuts said:


> Yep, it all really stems from property issues and appeasing fragile, grabby, violence prone, male egos in exchange for some fucked up sense of longer term security. Human control issues.  No one really cares about multiverses. Perhaps multiple verses?



No multiverses.

Also, no aliens.  The atheists and their scientists are doomed.  Whatcha gonna do when Satan and his minions run wild on you?

'Previously, the thousands of exoplanets we discovered last year would suggest that life exists in _some _solar system out there, if most solar systems end up looking like ours. But new research has revealed that most solar systems are very, very different—meaning that finding alien life could be even more difficult.

According to a new paper in the _Astronomical Journal_, most of the solar systems observed by the Kepler telescope have planets that are a) roughly the same size and b) roughly the same distance from one another. Compared to our solar system, which has huge gas planets like Jupiter and Saturn and tiny, rocky planets like Venus and Mercury at varying distances from one another, these systems seem to be much more uniform.

This may mean that out solar system's formation was actually an anomaly:

_"In classic planet formation theory, planets form in the protoplanetary disk that surrounds a newly formed star. The planets might form in compact configurations with similar sizes and a regular orbital spacing, in a manner similar to the newly observed pattern in exoplanetary systems...Abundant evidence in the solar system suggests that Jupiter and Saturn disrupted our system's early structure, resulting in the four widely-spaced terrestrial planets we have today. That planets in most systems are still similarly sized and regularly spaced suggests that perhaps they have been mostly undisturbed since their formation."'









						Aliens Don't Exist: Our Solar System Is an Anomaly, Study Claims
					

Think the odds for finding aliens are stacked in our favor? You couldn't be more wrong. Our solar system is rarer than we ever imagined, a new study claims.




					www.outerplaces.com
				



_


----------



## Batcat

fncceo said:


> Blackrook said:
> 
> 
> 
> We've been listening for their radio signals for decades and in all that time we've heard squat.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Radio has gone out of fashion in the more civilized galaxies.
> 
> View attachment 412449
> 
> They're all about Social Media now.
Click to expand...


To an advanced civilization communication by radio signals is like using smoke signals here on earth.


----------



## Batcat

If there are no alien civilizations what are those objects we keep seeing on videos from our fighter jets? Swamp gas or mosquito clouds?


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, there's nothing in the text that indicates that God would raise Isaac from the Dead, or that Abe thought he would. God was demanding a loyalty test from Abe, and he got one. And it was kind of fucked up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are quite wrong and in the wrong section.  It's usually atheists who want science to show them the truth and it does.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and we have the big bang to show for it.  There you go.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is nothing in the Genesis fable that suggests your gods or anyone else's gods describes the expansion of the universe. Those hyper-religious types predisposed to partisan versions of supernatural gods might want to explain the billions of years that define the age of the universe versus the mere 6,000 years implied by the Bibles.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> " It is he who sits above the circle of the earth, and its inhabitants are like grasshoppers; who stretches out the heavens like a curtain, and spreads them like a tent to dwell in;" Isaiah 40:22
> 
> Such atheist stupidity and more this is fine thinking.
> 
> How does it feel, _grasshopper_, to always be wrong?  Red faced, head down, always feeling low?
Click to expand...



You forgot this.

_7:1 After this I saw four angels standing at the four corners of the earth, holding back the four winds of the earth to prevent any wind from blowing on the land or on the sea or on any tr_ee.


Oh, and about that immovable earth:


> Chronicles 16:30: “He has fixed the earth firm, immovable.”





> Psalm 93:1: “Thou hast fixed the earth immovable and firm ...”





> Psalm 96 “He has fixed the earth firm, immovable ...”



How does it feel to need some new, new, revised, edited again Bibles?


----------



## JoeB131

james bond said:


> All Adam and Eve had to do was not act like God. It wasn't a test as you put it, but the _one commandment_ that they could not do. They were given free will.



Actually, I hope they wouldn't act like Yahweh, the guy has the morals of a Batman Villian or a really bad boss.  

"Hey, I don't want you to eat from this tree, because you'll realize you're naked and shit.   But I'm going to put it in the middle of this garden you live in, and then I'm going to make the fruits really juicy...  And then I'm going to leave this talking snake (HA!!!) around that will tempt you into eating from it."  



james bond said:


> As for the rest, you sound like you are acting like God and will probably meet the same fate (going to hell, end up somewhere in mixed up geography, and being farked by Tojo or some backward thinking Jabba). Were you in WW II? Stationed in Hawaii? Had to run for cover?



Wow, you are babbling... but you are kind of missing my point.  If Jesus is the way into heaven, then why does God hate Japan so much?  What if you are wrong and Amaterasu is actually the Supreme Being.  She doesn't sound nearly as horrible as Yahweh, as imaginary sky pixies go.


----------



## fncceo

Batcat said:


> If there are no alien civilizations what are those objects we keep seeing on videos from our fighter jets? Swamp gas or mosquito clouds?



It's just Kirk and Spock, time traveling again.


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, there's nothing in the text that indicates that God would raise Isaac from the Dead, or that Abe thought he would. God was demanding a loyalty test from Abe, and he got one. And it was kind of fucked up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are quite wrong and in the wrong section.  It's usually atheists who want science to show them the truth and it does.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and we have the big bang to show for it.  There you go.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is nothing in the Genesis fable that suggests your gods or anyone else's gods describes the expansion of the universe. Those hyper-religious types predisposed to partisan versions of supernatural gods might want to explain the billions of years that define the age of the universe versus the mere 6,000 years implied by the Bibles.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> " It is he who sits above the circle of the earth, and its inhabitants are like grasshoppers; who stretches out the heavens like a curtain, and spreads them like a tent to dwell in;" Isaiah 40:22
> 
> Such atheist stupidity and more this is fine thinking.
> 
> How does it feel, _grasshopper_, to always be wrong?  Red faced, head down, always feeling low?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You forgot this.
> 
> _7:1 After this I saw four angels standing at the four corners of the earth, holding back the four winds of the earth to prevent any wind from blowing on the land or on the sea or on any tr_ee.
> 
> 
> Oh, and about that immovable earth:
> 
> 
> 
> Chronicles 16:30: “He has fixed the earth firm, immovable.”
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Psalm 93:1: “Thou hast fixed the earth immovable and firm ...”
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Psalm 96 “He has fixed the earth firm, immovable ...”
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How does it feel to need some new, new, revised, edited again Bibles?
Click to expand...


You should change your handle to Hollie Hunglow.  Your face will forever be red, head down to the ground, and always feeling low, low, low.

Not only do you not quote properly, you do not know its meaning, Ms. Hunglow.


----------



## Batcat

fncceo said:


> Batcat said:
> 
> 
> 
> If there are no alien civilizations what are those objects we keep seeing on videos from our fighter jets? Swamp gas or mosquito clouds?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's just Kirk and Spock, time traveling again.
> 
> View attachment 428785
Click to expand...


Time travelers have been suggested and in my option are a definite possibility. 

In passing. We do live in interesting times.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, there's nothing in the text that indicates that God would raise Isaac from the Dead, or that Abe thought he would. God was demanding a loyalty test from Abe, and he got one. And it was kind of fucked up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are quite wrong and in the wrong section.  It's usually atheists who want science to show them the truth and it does.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and we have the big bang to show for it.  There you go.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is nothing in the Genesis fable that suggests your gods or anyone else's gods describes the expansion of the universe. Those hyper-religious types predisposed to partisan versions of supernatural gods might want to explain the billions of years that define the age of the universe versus the mere 6,000 years implied by the Bibles.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> " It is he who sits above the circle of the earth, and its inhabitants are like grasshoppers; who stretches out the heavens like a curtain, and spreads them like a tent to dwell in;" Isaiah 40:22
> 
> Such atheist stupidity and more this is fine thinking.
> 
> How does it feel, _grasshopper_, to always be wrong?  Red faced, head down, always feeling low?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You forgot this.
> 
> _7:1 After this I saw four angels standing at the four corners of the earth, holding back the four winds of the earth to prevent any wind from blowing on the land or on the sea or on any tr_ee.
> 
> 
> Oh, and about that immovable earth:
> 
> 
> 
> Chronicles 16:30: “He has fixed the earth firm, immovable.”
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Psalm 93:1: “Thou hast fixed the earth immovable and firm ...”
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Psalm 96 “He has fixed the earth firm, immovable ...”
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How does it feel to need some new, new, revised, edited again Bibles?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You should change your handle to Hollie Hunglow.  Your face will forever be red, head down to the ground, and always feeling low, low, low.
> 
> Not only do you not quote properly, you do not know its meaning, Ms. Hunglow.
Click to expand...

Your juvenile attempts at name-calling are rather childish.

If you need help understanding what is in the various Bibles, raise your hand and ask questions.

To answer your first, unasked question, no, the earth is not flat.


----------



## james bond

JoeB131 said:


> "Hey, I don't want you to eat from this tree, because you'll realize you're naked and shit. But I'm going to put it in the middle of this garden you live in, and then I'm going to make the fruits really juicy... And then I'm going to leave this talking snake (HA!!!) around that will tempt you into eating from it."



Your first actual point.  Why did God put the ToK in the middle of the Garden (and not on top of a mountain or something)?  All I can think of is it was his only commandment.  It wasn't supposed to be temptation, but the lizard made it that way.  Regardless, the couple was young and they didn't seem to last long in paradise.  Maybe it's like the Christians here wanting you and the other atheists to be on top of the Himalayas, but you're here and we are exposed to your indignant, wrong, and bitter screed.



JoeB131 said:


> If Jesus is the way into heaven, then why does God hate Japan so much?



I dunno.  I didn't think he hated Japan.  Where do you get that?  Maybe China with its state atheism.  What is Amaterasu?


----------



## fncceo

Batcat said:


> We do live in interesting times.



All times are interesting, for interesting people.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

fncceo said:


> Batcat said:
> 
> 
> 
> We do live in interesting times.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All times are interesting, for interesting people.
Click to expand...


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> Your juvenile attempts at name-calling are rather childish.
> 
> If you need help understanding what is in the various Bibles, raise your hand and ask questions.
> 
> To answer your first, unasked question, no, the earth is not flat.



You're just not my type and certainly not one I ask Bible questions about.

I don't think my name calling is as bad as yours for flat Earthers and derogatory ID names.  That's your hang up and stereotype.


----------



## fncceo

Hollie said:


> the earth is not flat.



We know the truth to be ...


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your juvenile attempts at name-calling are rather childish.
> 
> If you need help understanding what is in the various Bibles, raise your hand and ask questions.
> 
> To answer your first, unasked question, no, the earth is not flat.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're just not my type and certainly not one I ask Bible questions about.
> 
> I don't think my name calling is as bad as yours for flat Earthers and derogatory ID names.  That's your hang up and stereotype.
Click to expand...

I gave you Bible verses that apparently you're uncomfortable with. Attempting to revise the Bibles to make them fit your preconceived notions is rather pointless. 

I can't be responsible for your hurt feelings if I acknowledge that you define an intelligent, supernatural designer as the creator of all existence. Why would you object to the ID'creationist label?

Is the earth really immovable? I thought it rotated about an axis and revolved in an ellipse around the sun. Is that not true?


----------



## ChemEngineer

Batcat said:


> To an advanced civilization communication by radio signals is like using smoke signals here on earth.



You would know this how, exactly, batcat?  Show and tell us your wisdom.
We await it breathfully.

Overlooked is the fact that along the way, E.T. surely used radiocommunications (IF he exists) and that would be continuing from the furthest reaches which SETI wackos have been exploring for decades without detecting a whisper.  So you lose either way.


----------



## fncceo

ChemEngineer said:


> Batcat said:
> 
> 
> 
> To an advanced civilization communication by radio signals is like using smoke signals here on earth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You would know this how, exactly, batcat?  Show and tell us your wisdom.
> We await it breathfully.
> 
> Overlooked is the fact that along the way, E.T. surely used radiocommunications (IF he exists) and that would be continuing from the furthest reaches which SETI wackos have been exploring for decades without detecting a whisper.  So you lose either way.
Click to expand...


Longer wave radio transmission (HF Band and below) has the best chance of traveling out beyond our solar system (but the inverse square law and the density of the Oort Cloud fight against it).  Humans have pretty much stopped using lower bandwidths for global communication because of bandwidth limitations. 

The first broadcast of radio in the HF band occurred in 1906, and began commercially in 1920.   Our Earth began 4 Billion Years ago, but human civilization began about 10,000 years ago.  So, we used Long-wave radio for global communication, about 1% of the time our civilization has existed, and our planet has been sending detectable radio waves into space for about .0000025% of its total lifespan.

We only have our own development to go by, and a sample of ONE isn't statistically useful, So, let's say, another civilization is slower to develop advanced radio communication, so they continue to spew detectable radio waves into space for 500 years (five times greater than us) or 10% of their total civilization age (much less for an older civilization).

So, no only would that civilization have had to develop in roughly the same timeframe as ours (adjusting for distance and the speed of electromagnetic radiation), and our civilization has only been around for .000025% of our planet's lifespan.  We would would have to be listening to that specific 10% where they used longer wave radio for global communication.

Next, factor in the sheer size of our galaxy and the fact that we can only monitor about .01% of the sky with radio telescopes at a time (that number would be considerably smaller now that Arecibo is offline).

The chances of us picking up intelligent radio signals for a distant civilization is remote in the extreme.  Even if there were thousands of them.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

fncceo said:


> ChemEngineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Batcat said:
> 
> 
> 
> To an advanced civilization communication by radio signals is like using smoke signals here on earth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You would know this how, exactly, batcat?  Show and tell us your wisdom.
> We await it breathfully.
> 
> Overlooked is the fact that along the way, E.T. surely used radiocommunications (IF he exists) and that would be continuing from the furthest reaches which SETI wackos have been exploring for decades without detecting a whisper.  So you lose either way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Longer wave radio transmission (HF Band and below) has the best chance of traveling out beyond our solar system (but the inverse square law and the density of the Oort Cloud fight against it).  Humans have pretty much stopped using lower bandwidths for global communication because of bandwidth limitations.
> 
> The first broadcast of radio in the HF band occurred in 1906, and began commercially in 1920.   Our Earth began 4 Billion Years ago, but human civilization began about 10,000 years ago.  So, we used Long-wave radio for global communication, about 1% of the time our civilization has existed, and our planet has been sending detectable radio waves into space for about .0000025% of its total lifespan.
> 
> We only have our own development to go by, and a sample of ONE isn't statistically useful, So, let's say, another civilization is slower to develop advanced radio communication, so they continue to spew detectable radio waves into space for 500 years (five times greater than us) or 10% of their total civilization age (much less for an older civilization).
> 
> So, no only would that civilization have had to develop in roughly the same timeframe as ours (adjusting for distance and the speed of electromagnetic radiation), and our civilization has only been around for .000025% of our planet's lifespan.  We would would have to be listing to that specific 10% where they used longer wave radio for global communication.
> 
> Next, factor in the sheer size of our galaxy and the fact that we can only monitor about .01% of the sky with radio telescopes at a time (that number would be considerably smaller now that Arecibo is offline).
> 
> The chances of us picking up intelligent radio signals for a distant civilization is remote in the extreme.  Even if there were thousands of them.
Click to expand...

Well said. You have basically summed up why the Fermi paradox... isn't.


----------



## fncceo

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChemEngineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Batcat said:
> 
> 
> 
> To an advanced civilization communication by radio signals is like using smoke signals here on earth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You would know this how, exactly, batcat?  Show and tell us your wisdom.
> We await it breathfully.
> 
> Overlooked is the fact that along the way, E.T. surely used radiocommunications (IF he exists) and that would be continuing from the furthest reaches which SETI wackos have been exploring for decades without detecting a whisper.  So you lose either way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Longer wave radio transmission (HF Band and below) has the best chance of traveling out beyond our solar system (but the inverse square law and the density of the Oort Cloud fight against it).  Humans have pretty much stopped using lower bandwidths for global communication because of bandwidth limitations.
> 
> The first broadcast of radio in the HF band occurred in 1906, and began commercially in 1920.   Our Earth began 4 Billion Years ago, but human civilization began about 10,000 years ago.  So, we used Long-wave radio for global communication, about 1% of the time our civilization has existed, and our planet has been sending detectable radio waves into space for about .0000025% of its total lifespan.
> 
> We only have our own development to go by, and a sample of ONE isn't statistically useful, So, let's say, another civilization is slower to develop advanced radio communication, so they continue to spew detectable radio waves into space for 500 years (five times greater than us) or 10% of their total civilization age (much less for an older civilization).
> 
> So, no only would that civilization have had to develop in roughly the same timeframe as ours (adjusting for distance and the speed of electromagnetic radiation), and our civilization has only been around for .000025% of our planet's lifespan.  We would would have to be listing to that specific 10% where they used longer wave radio for global communication.
> 
> Next, factor in the sheer size of our galaxy and the fact that we can only monitor about .01% of the sky with radio telescopes at a time (that number would be considerably smaller now that Arecibo is offline).
> 
> The chances of us picking up intelligent radio signals for a distant civilization is remote in the extreme.  Even if there were thousands of them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well said. You have basically summed up why the Fermi paradox... isn't.
Click to expand...


Precisely.  The Fermi 'Paradox' assumes that an extraterrestrial civilization would want to develop interstellar travel (and we have no way of knowing just how common that might be).  

Perhaps human curiosity, which has an evolutionary advantage in our environment, might be deadly in a civilization of cats.


----------



## LittleNipper

I have personally found that until someone allows GOD in to open his or her heart, such a person will never have any assurance that GOD is very real.


----------



## GLASNOST

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> GLASNOST said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your problem is that you do not understand what agnosticism is (or means) and you refuse to acknowledge it so you insist on continuing to falsely call it atheism.
> 
> 
> 
> Completely false. i completely acknowledge the meanings you present and have done so repeatedly. I am just proposing a semantic change. No idea where you are getting this nonsense. I think you need to slow down. Your excitability and childish insults discredit you, especially when you are completely wrong and misunderstanding others.
Click to expand...

As you like. If you still don't understand just carry on as you were.


----------



## JoeB131

james bond said:


> Your first actual point. Why did God put the ToK in the middle of the Garden (and not on top of a mountain or something)? All I can think of is it was his only commandment. It wasn't supposed to be temptation, but the lizard made it that way. Regardless, the couple was young and they didn't seem to last long in paradise. Maybe it's like the Christians here wanting you and the other atheists to be on top of the Himalayas, but you're here and we are exposed to your indignant, wrong, and bitter screed.



Yes, how dare you have to live in a free country... 

But you miss the point.  God created a test he had to have known Adam and Eve would certainly fail.  That's not a loving God, that's a cruel sadist.  

But the whole Old Testament reads like that. God does something cruel and evil to his followers for no other reason than he can.  Understandable, if you are a bronze age person who sees "God" as every random force of nature you can't explain.  Oops, we have a plague.  We must have made God unhappy.  Let's find some poor fool who broke some taboo and stone him and his whole family to appease God.  



james bond said:


> I dunno. I didn't think he hated Japan. Where do you get that? Maybe China with its state atheism. What is Amaterasu?



Amaterasu is the Japanese Sun Goddess and supreme deity in Shintoism.  She is also the ancestor of the current Imperial Family of Japan, according to legend 






And if you were born in Japan, you would have sincerely believed she is the creator instead of Yahweh, which means you are going to hell based on geography....


----------



## Grumblenuts

fncceo said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> the earth is not flat.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We know the truth to be ...
> 
> View attachment 428791
Click to expand...

I count 5?
_Five
Five corner
Five corner flat Earth!.._


----------



## Grumblenuts

JoeB131 said:


> "Hey, I don't want you to eat from this tree, because you'll realize you're naked and shit. But I'm going to put it in the middle of this garden you live in, and then I'm going to make the fruits really juicy... And then I'm going to leave this talking snake (HA!!!) around that will tempt you into eating from it."


Hollywood version;


> JOCK: Don’t mind him. That’s Reggie. Wouldn’t hurt a soul.
> INDY: I can’t stand snakes.
> JOCK: The world’s full of them, you know.
> INDY: I hate them.
> JOCK: Come on now, Sport. Show a little of the old backbone.


(teehee)


----------



## Hollie

Grumblenuts said:


> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> the earth is not flat.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We know the truth to be ...
> 
> View attachment 428791
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I count 5?
> _Five
> Five corner
> Five corner flat Earth!.._
Click to expand...

God's math!


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

LittleNipper said:


> I have personally found that until someone allows GOD in to open his or her heart, such a person will never have any assurance that GOD is very real.


So we first have to believe in god to then get reasons to believe in god. Seems legit.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

GLASNOST said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GLASNOST said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your problem is that you do not understand what agnosticism is (or means) and you refuse to acknowledge it so you insist on continuing to falsely call it atheism.
> 
> 
> 
> Completely false. i completely acknowledge the meanings you present and have done so repeatedly. I am just proposing a semantic change. No idea where you are getting this nonsense. I think you need to slow down. Your excitability and childish insults discredit you, especially when you are completely wrong and misunderstanding others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As you like. If you still don't understand just carry on as you were.
Click to expand...

I do understand, and even agreed with your definitions as fine. I also understand you need a case of vaginal sand remover.


----------



## james bond

JoeB131 said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your first actual point. Why did God put the ToK in the middle of the Garden (and not on top of a mountain or something)? All I can think of is it was his only commandment. It wasn't supposed to be temptation, but the lizard made it that way. Regardless, the couple was young and they didn't seem to last long in paradise. Maybe it's like the Christians here wanting you and the other atheists to be on top of the Himalayas, but you're here and we are exposed to your indignant, wrong, and bitter screed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, how dare you have to live in a free country...
> 
> But you miss the point.  God created a test he had to have known Adam and Eve would certainly fail.  That's not a loving God, that's a cruel sadist.
> 
> But the whole Old Testament reads like that. God does something cruel and evil to his followers for no other reason than he can.  Understandable, if you are a bronze age person who sees "God" as every random force of nature you can't explain.  Oops, we have a plague.  We must have made God unhappy.  Let's find some poor fool who broke some taboo and stone him and his whole family to appease God.
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> I dunno. I didn't think he hated Japan. Where do you get that? Maybe China with its state atheism. What is Amaterasu?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Amaterasu is the Japanese Sun Goddess and supreme deity in Shintoism.  She is also the ancestor of the current Imperial Family of Japan, according to legend
> 
> View attachment 428888
> 
> And if you were born in Japan, you would have sincerely believed she is the creator instead of Yahweh, which means you are going to hell based on geography....
Click to expand...


>>And if you were born in Japan, you would have sincerely believed she is the creator instead of Yahweh, which means you are going to hell based on geography...<<

Oh, I see your argument now.  You sincerely believe in the religion of no God/gods, so you belittle people who believe in any God/gods (paganism).  There are many false gods around except the most baddest real "god of the world and prince of the power of the air."  Like quantum particles, he remains hidden but spreads his messages all around.  The Bible has been spread and the hope is everyone gets the message.

If one ends up in hell, then I think there are different levels.  One reaps what they sow.

"And that servant who knew his master's will but did not get ready or act according to his will, will receive a severe beating. But the one who did not know, and did what deserved a beating, will receive a light beating. Everyone to whom much was given, of him much will be required, and from him to whom they entrusted much, they will demand the more." Luke 12:47-48

"But as for the cowardly, the faithless, the detestable, as for murderers, the sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars, their portion will be in the lake that burns with fire and sulfur, which is the second death.” Revelation 21:8

"For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but cast them into hell and committed them to chains of gloomy darkness to be kept until the judgment;" 2 Peter 2:4

Lowest level
"And the devil who had deceived them was thrown into the lake of fire and sulfur where the beast and the false prophet were, and they will be tormented day and night forever and ever." Revelation 20:10



JoeB131 said:


> Yes, how dare you have to live in a free country...
> 
> But you miss the point. God created a test he had to have known Adam and Eve would certainly fail. That's not a loving God, that's a cruel sadist.
> 
> But the whole Old Testament reads like that. God does something cruel and evil to his followers for no other reason than he can. Understandable, if you are a bronze age person who sees "God" as every random force of nature you can't explain. Oops, we have a plague. We must have made God unhappy. Let's find some poor fool who broke some taboo and stone him and his whole family to appease God.



I think we've had to fight other countries in order to remain a free country.  Two world wars so far, but maybe the threat of nuclear war, i.e. total annihilation, will prevent WW III.  I think it also means the end is near.  Jesus will come again before that.  There should be some changes before then to prevent WW III such as one world leader.

I think you miss the point.  Again it wasn't a test, but a commandment to show free will.  God didn't want robots, so both the angels and people received it.  They had intelligence.  

I showed you what the future represented with the Schrodinger's Cat experiment and light particle-slit experiment.  Those experiments do not show multiverses, but shows how our future works.  We don't know what our future is until we look.  All things are possible until we choose to look.  It also shows that we have free will as we make some choices such as God/no god before we look.  Others, we look and make choices such as our life's work and such.


----------



## JoeB131

james bond said:


> Oh, I see your argument now. You sincerely believe in the religion of no God/gods, so you belittle people who believe in any God/gods (paganism). There are many false gods around except the most baddest real "god of the world and prince of the power of the air." Like quantum particles, he remains hidden but spreads his messages all around. The Bible has been spread and the hope is everyone gets the message.



Actually, you remind me of the joke about the man who arrives in Heaven, and he's getting the tour.  St. Peter says, 'We have the Protestants over there, and the Muslims are there, and the Hindus are over there..."  

"Whose behind that wall?"

"Oh, those are the Catholics, they like to think they are the only ones up here."  

Look, guy, you can spew out all the bible verses you want.    It goes back to my original point.  Why should a very nice lady I know go to hell because she was born in Japan instead of America?  (She was actually a Buddhist, not a Shinto, but you get my point.) 

Furthermore, if you are going to claim that Christianity is right and Shintoism is false, what's your evidence? 



james bond said:


> I think we've had to fight other countries in order to remain a free country. Two world wars so far, but maybe the threat of nuclear war, i.e. total annihilation, will prevent WW III. I think it also means the end is near. Jesus will come again before that. There should be some changes before then to prevent WW III such as one world leader.



yeah, you Apocalypse fetishists have been saying that shit for 2000 years now, and frankly, it sounds like, "I hope everyone dies so I can show people I was RIGHT!!!"   That's -  kind of fucked up, man.


----------



## Grumblenuts

james bond said:


> "And the devil who had deceived them was thrown into the lake of fire and sulfur where _{...blaa di blaa blaa}_


More flat-Eartherism, now in the midst of proclaiming "intelligence." Try gobs of thinly veiled satire promoting repression and slavery.


----------



## james bond

JoeB131 said:


> Look, guy, you can spew out all the bible verses you want. It goes back to my original point. Why should a very nice lady I know go to hell because she was born in Japan instead of America? (She was actually a Buddhist, not a Shinto, but you get my point.)
> 
> Furthermore, if you are going to claim that Christianity is right and Shintoism is false, what's your evidence?



I already told you the truth book or word of God -- the Bible.  You even just admitted it.  How do I know it is true?  Science and history backs it up.  It's part history book.

What evidence do you have for Jeffrey Dahmer?  Anne Frank?  Your Buddhist?

What you are doing is making up straw man arguments for your lack of faith and faith in atheism.  As I said, no one but Jesus will know.

"For he has set a day when he will judge the world with justice by the man he has appointed. He has given proof of this to everyone by raising him from the dead." Acts 17:31

It states God has appointed Jesus as the one who will judge the world with _justice_.  What does this mean?  The serial killer didn't really repent in his heart?  Anne Frank did believe?  The Buddhist didn't really know anything else?


----------



## james bond

Grumblenuts said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> "And the devil who had deceived them was thrown into the lake of fire and sulfur where _{...blaa di blaa blaa}_
> 
> 
> 
> More flat-Eartherism, now in the midst of proclaiming "intelligence." Try gobs of thinly veiled satire promoting repression and slavery.
Click to expand...


So you don't think there are the depths of hell and different levels?  One doesn't reap what they sow?


----------



## danielpalos

james bond said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> "And the devil who had deceived them was thrown into the lake of fire and sulfur where _{...blaa di blaa blaa}_
> 
> 
> 
> More flat-Eartherism, now in the midst of proclaiming "intelligence." Try gobs of thinly veiled satire promoting repression and slavery.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you don't think there are the depths of hell and different levels?  One doesn't reap what they sow?
Click to expand...

Adam and Eve not reaching out and eating from the fruit of the Tree of (perfect) Knowledge before the fruit of the Tree of LIfe doomed us to Nexus Six.


----------



## james bond

danielpalos said:


> Adam and Eve not reaching out and eating from the fruit of the Tree of (perfect) Knowledge before the fruit of the Tree of LIfe doomed us to Nexus Six.



Yup.  We ended up having to die and more hardships.

It wasn't the act so much, but what they ended up thinking before it.  They knew the act was forbidden, but they were convinced that they would be _like God_ and know what was good and bad for them.  IOW, many times we think we know better when it comes to doing good and doing evil.  

'Now the serpent was more crafty than any beast of the field that the LORD God had made. And he said to the woman, “Did God really say, ‘You must not eat from any tree in the garden?’”

The woman answered the serpent, “We may eat the fruit of the trees of the garden, but about the fruit of the tree in the middle of the garden, God has said, ‘You must not eat of it or touch it, or you will die.’”

“You will not surely die,” the serpent told her. “For God knows that in the day you eat of it, your eyes will be opened and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”

When the woman saw that the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eyes, and that it was desirable for obtaining wisdom, she took the fruit and ate it. She also gave some to her husband who was with her, and he ate it.' Genesis 3:1-6


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Adam and Eve not reaching out and eating from the fruit of the Tree of (perfect) Knowledge before the fruit of the Tree of LIfe doomed us to Nexus Six.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yup.  We ended up having to die and more hardships.
> 
> It wasn't the act so much, but what they ended up thinking before it.  They knew the act was forbidden, but they were convinced that they would be _like God_ and know what was good and bad for them.  IOW, many times we think we know better when it comes to doing good and doing evil.
> 
> 'Now the serpent was more crafty than any beast of the field that the LORD God had made. And he said to the woman, “Did God really say, ‘You must not eat from any tree in the garden?’”
> 
> The woman answered the serpent, “We may eat the fruit of the trees of the garden, but about the fruit of the tree in the middle of the garden, God has said, ‘You must not eat of it or touch it, or you will die.’”
> 
> “You will not surely die,” the serpent told her. “For God knows that in the day you eat of it, your eyes will be opened and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”
> 
> When the woman saw that the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eyes, and that it was desirable for obtaining wisdom, she took the fruit and ate it. She also gave some to her husband who was with her, and he ate it.' Genesis 3:1-6
Click to expand...

Quite a fable. Interesting that the writers of the fable made your gods a liar.

The talking serpent told the truth. Your gods lied. How’s that for a kick in the pants?


----------



## danielpalos

Hollie said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Adam and Eve not reaching out and eating from the fruit of the Tree of (perfect) Knowledge before the fruit of the Tree of LIfe doomed us to Nexus Six.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yup.  We ended up having to die and more hardships.
> 
> It wasn't the act so much, but what they ended up thinking before it.  They knew the act was forbidden, but they were convinced that they would be _like God_ and know what was good and bad for them.  IOW, many times we think we know better when it comes to doing good and doing evil.
> 
> 'Now the serpent was more crafty than any beast of the field that the LORD God had made. And he said to the woman, “Did God really say, ‘You must not eat from any tree in the garden?’”
> 
> The woman answered the serpent, “We may eat the fruit of the trees of the garden, but about the fruit of the tree in the middle of the garden, God has said, ‘You must not eat of it or touch it, or you will die.’”
> 
> “You will not surely die,” the serpent told her. “For God knows that in the day you eat of it, your eyes will be opened and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”
> 
> When the woman saw that the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eyes, and that it was desirable for obtaining wisdom, she took the fruit and ate it. She also gave some to her husband who was with her, and he ate it.' Genesis 3:1-6
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Quite a fable. Interesting that the writers of the fable made your gods a liar.
> 
> The talking serpent told the truth. Your gods lied. How’s that for a kick in the pants?
Click to expand...

Predestination from a God who knew going for the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge would always be the first choice over the fruit of the Tree of Life?


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Adam and Eve not reaching out and eating from the fruit of the Tree of (perfect) Knowledge before the fruit of the Tree of LIfe doomed us to Nexus Six.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yup.  We ended up having to die and more hardships.
> 
> It wasn't the act so much, but what they ended up thinking before it.  They knew the act was forbidden, but they were convinced that they would be _like God_ and know what was good and bad for them.  IOW, many times we think we know better when it comes to doing good and doing evil.
> 
> 'Now the serpent was more crafty than any beast of the field that the LORD God had made. And he said to the woman, “Did God really say, ‘You must not eat from any tree in the garden?’”
> 
> The woman answered the serpent, “We may eat the fruit of the trees of the garden, but about the fruit of the tree in the middle of the garden, God has said, ‘You must not eat of it or touch it, or you will die.’”
> 
> “You will not surely die,” the serpent told her. “For God knows that in the day you eat of it, your eyes will be opened and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”
> 
> When the woman saw that the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eyes, and that it was desirable for obtaining wisdom, she took the fruit and ate it. She also gave some to her husband who was with her, and he ate it.' Genesis 3:1-6
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Quite a fable. Interesting that the writers of the fable made your gods a liar.
> 
> The talking serpent told the truth. Your gods lied. How’s that for a kick in the pants?
Click to expand...


Your comment shows that you are acting _like God_ and saying that God's word is a lie (fable) and was wrong.  Your atheism won't let you believe that we had it made and didn't have to die.  Do you see how easy it is to act _like God_?  Now, we have ten commandments  .

First, we see that Adam and Eve had free will and that the were tempted and responded just like you.

Second, how is it that Satan told the truth?  All he did was tempt them and all they had to do was ignore Satan.  God gave them and us everything that we would ever want and not die.  We would've been really like God and be living in heaven on Earth right now.  I want a steak and lobster or beer and pizza  and voila there it is.  And you could trust other people, too, even if you didn't know them.

Biology backs the story up as serpents lost their tail and legs and have to crawl on their bellies.  What other animals do that?  Maybe some insects.

God also said don't eat these types of animals and insects.  Generally speaking you don't want to eat the wild ones as they could be poisonous or carry parasites.


----------



## Grumblenuts

james bond said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> "And the devil who had deceived them was thrown into the lake of fire and sulfur where _{...blaa di blaa blaa}_
> 
> 
> 
> More flat-Eartherism, now in the midst of proclaiming "intelligence." Try gobs of thinly veiled satire promoting repression and slavery.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you don't think there are the depths of hell and different levels?  One doesn't reap what they sow?
Click to expand...

No, there's neither a hell nor a heaven. And no, not in any religious sense.


----------



## james bond

Grumblenuts said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> "And the devil who had deceived them was thrown into the lake of fire and sulfur where _{...blaa di blaa blaa}_
> 
> 
> 
> More flat-Eartherism, now in the midst of proclaiming "intelligence." Try gobs of thinly veiled satire promoting repression and slavery.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you don't think there are the depths of hell and different levels?  One doesn't reap what they sow?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, there's neither a hell nor a heaven. And no, not in any religious sense.
Click to expand...


"He will render to each one according to his works: to those who by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life; but for those who are self-seeking and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, there will be wrath and fury." Romans 2:6-8

"And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life." Matthew 25:46

"And that servant who knew his master's will but did not get ready or act according to his will, will receive a severe beating. But the one who did not know, and did what deserved a beating, will receive a light beating. Everyone to whom much was given, of him much will be required, and from him to whom they entrusted much, they will demand the more." Luke 12:47-48

Do you just ignore or gloss over the verses?  What happens when your perfect spiritual self is burned up?  The last verse may talk about different levels, but that's just my opinion.


----------



## JoeB131

james bond said:


> I already told you the truth book or word of God -- the Bible. You even just admitted it. How do I know it is true? Science and history backs it up. It's part history book.



yeah, somehow, I can't take a book with talking animals and giants in it very seriously.  



james bond said:


> What evidence do you have for Jeffrey Dahmer? Anne Frank?



Their existence has been documented through photographs and written records, unlike the book of fairy tales, which were written down centuries after the fact based on oral traditions.  



james bond said:


> What you are doing is making up straw man arguments for your lack of faith and faith in atheism. As I said, no one but Jesus will know.



Naw, man, my atheism was set in stone when my Mom died despite the whole parish praying for her to get better. 



james bond said:


> It states God has appointed Jesus as the one who will judge the world with _justice_. What does this mean? The serial killer didn't really repent in his heart? Anne Frank did believe? The Buddhist didn't really know anything else?



Okay, let's look at that.   

Kind of unlikely that Anne Frank suddenly started loving Jesus when CHRISTIANS forced her to hide in an attic for years before sending her off to die in a concentration camp.... Those people wore belt buckles that read "Gott Mit Uns" (God's with us) when they invaded... I can't imagine she was well disposed towards Jesus when she died.  

Now, for Chef Jeff, I don't know what was in his heart.  (We do know what was in his stomach, though!) He might have sincerely repented.  Or he might have been scamming the prison ministry to get extra privileges and avoid work details.  But assuming that his conversion and confession was sincere, by Christian theology, he gets to go to Heaven.  He killed 17 people and ATE Them.  

The problem with "Christian Justice" is that it's based on fear and obedience, not justice.   Ann Frank and my Japanese friend were basically good people.   They shouldn't be penalized because they were born into the wrong religion.   Jeff Dahmner was mentally ill, to be sure, but he still knew enough about right and wrong to try to cover up his crimes.  But he says "Jesus" with enough sincerity and he gets into heaven?  That's kind of messed up.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Adam and Eve not reaching out and eating from the fruit of the Tree of (perfect) Knowledge before the fruit of the Tree of LIfe doomed us to Nexus Six.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yup.  We ended up having to die and more hardships.
> 
> It wasn't the act so much, but what they ended up thinking before it.  They knew the act was forbidden, but they were convinced that they would be _like God_ and know what was good and bad for them.  IOW, many times we think we know better when it comes to doing good and doing evil.
> 
> 'Now the serpent was more crafty than any beast of the field that the LORD God had made. And he said to the woman, “Did God really say, ‘You must not eat from any tree in the garden?’”
> 
> The woman answered the serpent, “We may eat the fruit of the trees of the garden, but about the fruit of the tree in the middle of the garden, God has said, ‘You must not eat of it or touch it, or you will die.’”
> 
> “You will not surely die,” the serpent told her. “For God knows that in the day you eat of it, your eyes will be opened and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”
> 
> When the woman saw that the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eyes, and that it was desirable for obtaining wisdom, she took the fruit and ate it. She also gave some to her husband who was with her, and he ate it.' Genesis 3:1-6
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Quite a fable. Interesting that the writers of the fable made your gods a liar.
> 
> The talking serpent told the truth. Your gods lied. How’s that for a kick in the pants?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your comment shows that you are acting _like God_ and saying that God's word is a lie (fable) and was wrong.  Your atheism won't let you believe that we had it made and didn't have to die.  Do you see how easy it is to act _like God_?  Now, we have ten commandments  .
> 
> First, we see that Adam and Eve had free will and that the were tempted and responded just like you.
> 
> Second, how is it that Satan told the truth?  All he did was tempt them and all they had to do was ignore Satan.  God gave them and us everything that we would ever want and not die.  We would've been really like God and be living in heaven on Earth right now.  I want a steak and lobster or beer and pizza  and voila there it is.  And you could trust other people, too, even if you didn't know them.
> 
> Biology backs the story up as serpents lost their tail and legs and have to crawl on their bellies.  What other animals do that?  Maybe some insects.
> 
> God also said don't eat these types of animals and insects.  Generally speaking you don't want to eat the wild ones as they could be poisonous or carry parasites.
Click to expand...

It seems you haven't studied your Bible'ology. Are you perhaps worshipping your own revised, edited King James (Bond) version?

For the moment, lets use that other KJV, shall we?


Genesis 3
16 And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:
17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

*[Commentary] Very clearly here we can see that evil already exists else it cannot be a tree of knowledge of good and evil. Man at this point in the narrative has nothing to do nor any knowledge of either good or evil. Hence evil must predate Man in order for there to be a choice*.

Genesis 3
1 Now the serpent was more subtle than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?
2 And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden:
3 But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.
4 And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:
5 For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.

Now we have two questions:

1. Does this serpent lie, deceive, and tempt ("yes" to all three)-- and are _any_ of these behaviors sinful? To answer this, apply them to the model of perfection, God. Can this God...

Lie? No, it would be sinful of God to lie and God by definition is sinless.

Deceive? No, it would be sinful of God to deceive and God by definition is sinless.

Tempt? Well, perhaps towards good, but the context here is towards disobedience and thus would be sinful, and of course it would be sinful of God to tempt and God by definition is sinless.

So we can agree that the behaviors of the serpent are pretty much sinful and none of them could be applied to the perfection of God within the narrative.

Onto our second question:

Exactly _who_ (or what) is this serpent? It can only be one of three things:

A. An actual flesh and blood serpent
B. Satan
C. God

If it is A., and if it sins (and it does) then sin has been introduced into the world by a flesh and blood creation of god, and man has _not_ brought it into the world.

If it is B. and if Satan sins, then once again evil has been brought into the world by an agent other than Man (although not of flesh and blood)

If it is C. (and actually, as the Author of Everything then Everything is ultimately of God) then we have a very deep problem, and a nature that totally self-destructs as God is both perfect and imperfect at the same time (this is the core "proof" of God not existing that leads to an atheistic conclusion-- for all those endless demands that atheists prove that a nothing doesn't not exist, it is only this-- that God is a senseless mass of contradictory nonsense that can establish any sort of "proof". A senseless mass of contradictory nonsense is indistinguishable from "nothingness"). For arguments sake, let's not head down C at all since in question 1 we have eliminated God being able to sin.

Now, left with choice A or B: I have heard the argument (and it's not a bad one actually): "Well, nowhere does it say God told the serpent he couldn't be evil and it was the disobedience that is the sin, not the act of evil."

To this I would point out that if sin (disobedience) is _not_ evil, then it must be good, and if it is good, it cannot be an act of disobedience, and once again we're in a feedback loop.

But let's even concede this point and see where it leads:

What we are left with is this: Evil is of God -- no way around that -- hence, God is all good and all evil at the same time and is completely self-contradictory. Sin is the failure of the test -- but if sin is evil, and man was kept from knowing what good and evil are (only the tree could supply that knowledge and he was told not to indulge), then he is precluded from being able to pass the test. God must know this, and God, being omniscient, _must_ know which way Man would choose. Hence, free will is an illusion. 

Lastly, we're left with a rather interesting contradiction. Per the fable, the talking snake told the truth: A&E didn't die. Your gods said they would.

Why did your gods lie?


----------



## danielpalos

God created marijuana with His own two hands on the Third Day and proclaimed it was Good and not Bad.  Why should we take Original Sinners who claim the opposite, morally seriously?


----------



## james bond

JoeB131 said:


> yeah, somehow, I can't take a book with talking animals and giants in it very seriously.



That's your achilles heel.  Anyway, what's done is done, i.e. your will was done (not God's will).

You know, I do understand why people gloss over the Bible verses.  I did the same before being born again.  For example, the biggest may be 6,000 year old Earth versus billions of years old Earth.  That is a considerable difference.  But our history really shows a young Earth, i.e. not much has happened.  Thus, it comes down to whether you believe the assumptions of the evolutionary timeline or the Bible.



JoeB131 said:


> Their existence has been documented through photographs and written records, unlike the book of fairy tales, which were written down centuries after the fact based on oral traditions.



All I know about Dahmer is what I read in papers and various articles and now on Reddit.  He could be who Hannibal the Cannibal character was based on.  What do you have?  Do you think he _really_ repented?  Or it's just part of your taunting?

I think Anne Frank was saved because she was still young and wasn't exposed to the Bible.  I never read much beyond her being a hero as a kid, but her diary seems to still hold interest.  I mean it's not WW II time anymore, but still people are interested.  Could it be because of what you brought up?



JoeB131 said:


> Naw, man, my atheism was set in stone when my Mom died despite the whole parish praying for her to get better.



That's interesting.  Those memories must be very vivid.  How young were you?  We all know that death is inevitable, but we don't know when it will be or how.  We expect it to happen, but aren't really ready for it.  Jesus told us to be ready.  In one way, we welcome it as part of our natural life.



JoeB131 said:


> Okay, let's look at that.
> 
> Kind of unlikely that Anne Frank suddenly started loving Jesus when CHRISTIANS forced her to hide in an attic for years before sending her off to die in a concentration camp.... Those people wore belt buckles that read "Gott Mit Uns" (God's with us) when they invaded... I can't imagine she was well disposed towards Jesus when she died.
> 
> Now, for Chef Jeff, I don't know what was in his heart. (We do know what was in his stomach, though!) He might have sincerely repented. Or he might have been scamming the prison ministry to get extra privileges and avoid work details. But assuming that his conversion and confession was sincere, by Christian theology, he gets to go to Heaven. He killed 17 people and ATE Them.
> 
> The problem with "Christian Justice" is that it's based on fear and obedience, not justice. Ann Frank and my Japanese friend were basically good people. They shouldn't be penalized because they were born into the wrong religion. Jeff Dahmner was mentally ill, to be sure, but he still knew enough about right and wrong to try to cover up his crimes. But he says "Jesus" with enough sincerity and he gets into heaven? That's kind of messed up.



Mwahaha on Dahmer's stomach.

I don't have definite evidence based on what I've read on Anne Frank, but she was one of the better stories about WW II and Nazis.  Why would Jews be the ones Hitler tried to genocide?  Us Bible readers would know, but it happened very fast during WW II and may not have been known what would happen.  I do know that Charles Darwin supported Eugenics and racism (it's in the Descent of Man book), but wasn't against Jews.  Hitler was greatly influenced by what he read about Eugenics and social Darwism.  Yet, Jews were the ones deported to the Nazi camps.  Were the other countries just cooperating with Hitler or afraid of his power?  I suppose there were others that Hitler hated, but we remember the Holocaust.

I'm not sure what Christian justice means, but I think you're referring to what Christians did in history and still do today.  No doubt, they were vicious in believing they were right in getting _justice_ based on Christianity, but that isn't what Jesus taught.  It's still part of Christians being _like God_ and thinking they are right when it comes to what's good and what's evil.  That's what Satan told Adam and Eve.  They would know what's good and what's bad like God by eating the fruit.  It's very easy to fall prey to.  We still continue to eat the fruit to this day and probably will continue to do it.


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> *[Commentary] Very clearly here we can see that evil already exists else it cannot be a tree of knowledge of good and evil. Man at this point in the narrative has nothing to do nor any knowledge of either good or evil. Hence evil must predate Man in order for there to be a choice*.



Correct.  Evil was created when Lucifer (with free will), the best angel and most powerful, wanted to be _like God_ in heaven.

Are you starting to get it now?  Somehow I doubt it.



Hollie said:


> Now, left with choice A or B: I have heard the argument (and it's not a bad one actually): "Well, nowhere does it say God told the serpent he couldn't be evil and it was the disobedience that is the sin, not the act of evil."
> 
> To this I would point out that if sin (disobedience) is _not_ evil, then it must be good, and if it is good, it cannot be an act of disobedience, and once again we're in a feedback loop.



Yes, it is certain you didn't get it and what the evil was.  There was a cause for the disobedience.


----------



## james bond

Maybe some do not know the story of Lucifer and what happened before Adam and Eve.  It's not straight forward explained like Genesis.


----------



## Batcat

God promised the Israelites all sorts of goodies if they obeyed his laws. In this universe they didn’t and suffered the consequences but if there are multiple universes there should be one where the Israelites did what God required and were rewarded.










						What are the blessings God promised Israel for obedience? | GotQuestions.org
					

What are the blessings God promised Israel for obedience? Were the blessings God promised a reward for obedience fulfilled?



					www.gotquestions.org


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> *[Commentary] Very clearly here we can see that evil already exists else it cannot be a tree of knowledge of good and evil. Man at this point in the narrative has nothing to do nor any knowledge of either good or evil. Hence evil must predate Man in order for there to be a choice*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correct.  Evil was created when Lucifer (with free will), the best angel and most powerful, wanted to be _like God_ in heaven.
> 
> Are you starting to get it now?  Somehow I doubt it.
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now, left with choice A or B: I have heard the argument (and it's not a bad one actually): "Well, nowhere does it say God told the serpent he couldn't be evil and it was the disobedience that is the sin, not the act of evil."
> 
> To this I would point out that if sin (disobedience) is _not_ evil, then it must be good, and if it is good, it cannot be an act of disobedience, and once again we're in a feedback loop.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, it is certain you didn't get it and what the evil was.  There was a cause for the disobedience.
Click to expand...

You're ignoring a very basic premise of the Genesis fable which is; the character called ''Lucifer'' as either, a) created by your gods, b) self created, or, c) was created by some other gods who were super gods to your gods.

Why don't you give us the Bible verses that describe who invented a character apparently more powerful than your gods?


Why don't you give us the Bible verses that explains what evil is? I would define the lie told by your gods as evil but as we know, evil would be a contradiction to the notion of the Biblical gods. Although, that puts us into a feedback loop when we see the evil, capricious and punitive acts committed by the Biblical gods toward their ''children''. What was the cause for disobedience as it applied to A&E? If you knew anything about your Bible'ology, you would know that the test put to A&E was not a test at all. If you knew your Bible’ology you would know that in the Genesis fable Yahweh doesn't bother to tell A&E there would be consequences of massive -- in fact -- eternal proportions. Ever notice that, bereft of knowledge of good and evil prior to eating the fruit of the tree, they can't tell what constitutes a "good" or "bad" behavior in the first place?

Why don't you give us a list of some excuses for condemning A&E and all of humanity for the rather petty crime of fruit theft?


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Maybe some do not know the story of Lucifer and what happened before Adam and Eve.  It's not straight forward explained like Genesis.


Lots of pretty pictures but is YouTube really the best you can do?


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> *[Commentary] Very clearly here we can see that evil already exists else it cannot be a tree of knowledge of good and evil. Man at this point in the narrative has nothing to do nor any knowledge of either good or evil. Hence evil must predate Man in order for there to be a choice*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correct.  Evil was created when Lucifer (with free will), the best angel and most powerful, wanted to be _like God_ in heaven.
> 
> Are you starting to get it now?  Somehow I doubt it.
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now, left with choice A or B: I have heard the argument (and it's not a bad one actually): "Well, nowhere does it say God told the serpent he couldn't be evil and it was the disobedience that is the sin, not the act of evil."
> 
> To this I would point out that if sin (disobedience) is _not_ evil, then it must be good, and if it is good, it cannot be an act of disobedience, and once again we're in a feedback loop.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, it is certain you didn't get it and what the evil was.  There was a cause for the disobedience.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're ignoring a very basic premise of the Genesis fable which is; the character called ''Lucifer'' as either, a) created by your gods, b) self created, or, c) was created by some other gods who were super gods to your gods.
> 
> Why don't you give us the Bible verses that describe who invented a character apparently more powerful than your gods?
> 
> 
> Why don't you give us the Bible verses that explains what evil is? I would define the lie told by your gods as evil but as we know, evil would be a contradiction to the notion of the Biblical gods. Although, that puts us into a feedback loop when we see the evil, capricious and punitive acts committed by the Biblical gods toward their ''children''. What was the cause for disobedience as it applied to A&E? If you knew anything about your Bible'ology, you would know that the test put to A&E was not a test at all. If you knew your Bible’ology you would know that in the Genesis fable Yahweh doesn't bother to tell A&E there would be consequences of massive -- in fact -- eternal proportions. Ever notice that, bereft of knowledge of good and evil prior to eating the fruit of the tree, they can't tell what constitutes a "good" or "bad" behavior in the first place?
> 
> Why don't you give us a list of some excuses for condemning A&E and all of humanity for the rather petty crime of fruit theft?
Click to expand...


I received Lucifer's background in parochial school.  This was before Genesis.  His story isn't straightforward in the Bible, so that is why I posted the youtube above.  Basically, Lucifer was God's best and most talented angel.  It shows that we will be spirit like in the afterlife, but with perfect spiritual bodies.  We won't be like the angels with wings, but similar in spirit.

Anyway, Lucifer became so powerful and was the most exalted one that he wanted to be like God and receive equal status.  That is the first sin and why he and his follower angels were cast down upon Earth.  It also created hell as a place for Lucifer (now Satan) and his follower angels in the afterlife.  The key is throughout history we have humans who acquired great power and wealth wanting to be like God in committing their evil.  If you look a four of the ten commandments, it's about being _like God_ or going against God as evil.  The other five are what humans do to each other kind of evil which we readily understand.



Hollie said:


> Lots of pretty pictures but is YouTube really the best you can do?



There are longer documentaries and we have human history of people who acquired great wealth and power and wanted to be like God.  Behind it, we find this was their motivation.  It's the first and greatest evil according to God.

That's why Adam and Eve only had one commandment.  However, I don't think lasted very long in old heaven.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> *[Commentary] Very clearly here we can see that evil already exists else it cannot be a tree of knowledge of good and evil. Man at this point in the narrative has nothing to do nor any knowledge of either good or evil. Hence evil must predate Man in order for there to be a choice*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correct.  Evil was created when Lucifer (with free will), the best angel and most powerful, wanted to be _like God_ in heaven.
> 
> Are you starting to get it now?  Somehow I doubt it.
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now, left with choice A or B: I have heard the argument (and it's not a bad one actually): "Well, nowhere does it say God told the serpent he couldn't be evil and it was the disobedience that is the sin, not the act of evil."
> 
> To this I would point out that if sin (disobedience) is _not_ evil, then it must be good, and if it is good, it cannot be an act of disobedience, and once again we're in a feedback loop.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, it is certain you didn't get it and what the evil was.  There was a cause for the disobedience.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're ignoring a very basic premise of the Genesis fable which is; the character called ''Lucifer'' as either, a) created by your gods, b) self created, or, c) was created by some other gods who were super gods to your gods.
> 
> Why don't you give us the Bible verses that describe who invented a character apparently more powerful than your gods?
> 
> 
> Why don't you give us the Bible verses that explains what evil is? I would define the lie told by your gods as evil but as we know, evil would be a contradiction to the notion of the Biblical gods. Although, that puts us into a feedback loop when we see the evil, capricious and punitive acts committed by the Biblical gods toward their ''children''. What was the cause for disobedience as it applied to A&E? If you knew anything about your Bible'ology, you would know that the test put to A&E was not a test at all. If you knew your Bible’ology you would know that in the Genesis fable Yahweh doesn't bother to tell A&E there would be consequences of massive -- in fact -- eternal proportions. Ever notice that, bereft of knowledge of good and evil prior to eating the fruit of the tree, they can't tell what constitutes a "good" or "bad" behavior in the first place?
> 
> Why don't you give us a list of some excuses for condemning A&E and all of humanity for the rather petty crime of fruit theft?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I received Lucifer's background in parochial school.  This was before Genesis.  His story isn't straightforward in the Bible, so that is why I posted the youtube above.  Basically, Lucifer was God's best and most talented angel.  It shows that we will be spirit like in the afterlife, but with perfect spiritual bodies.  We won't be like the angels with wings, but similar in spirit.
> 
> Anyway, Lucifer became so powerful and was the most exalted one that he wanted to be like God and receive equal status.  That is the first sin and why he and his follower angels were cast down upon Earth.  It also created hell as a place for Lucifer (now Satan) and his follower angels in the afterlife.  The key is throughout history we have humans who acquired great power and wealth wanting to be like God in committing their evil.  If you look a four of the ten commandments, it's about being _like God_ or going against God as evil.  The other five are what humans do to each other kind of evil which we readily understand.
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lots of pretty pictures but is YouTube really the best you can do?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are longer documentaries and we have human history of people who acquired great wealth and power and wanted to be like God.  Behind it, we find this was their motivation.  It's the first and greatest evil according to God.
> 
> That's why Adam and Eve only had one commandment.  However, I don't think lasted very long in old heaven.
Click to expand...

So, apparently you believe that the lucifer character was an ''angel''. Super! The list of supernatural characters gets more complicated.

So, how is it that Lucifer was apparently more powerful than your gods?

Lastly, I'm not clear on what you mean by ''old heaven''. Is there a new one?


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> *[Commentary] Very clearly here we can see that evil already exists else it cannot be a tree of knowledge of good and evil. Man at this point in the narrative has nothing to do nor any knowledge of either good or evil. Hence evil must predate Man in order for there to be a choice*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correct.  Evil was created when Lucifer (with free will), the best angel and most powerful, wanted to be _like God_ in heaven.
> 
> Are you starting to get it now?  Somehow I doubt it.
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now, left with choice A or B: I have heard the argument (and it's not a bad one actually): "Well, nowhere does it say God told the serpent he couldn't be evil and it was the disobedience that is the sin, not the act of evil."
> 
> To this I would point out that if sin (disobedience) is _not_ evil, then it must be good, and if it is good, it cannot be an act of disobedience, and once again we're in a feedback loop.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, it is certain you didn't get it and what the evil was.  There was a cause for the disobedience.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're ignoring a very basic premise of the Genesis fable which is; the character called ''Lucifer'' as either, a) created by your gods, b) self created, or, c) was created by some other gods who were super gods to your gods.
> 
> Why don't you give us the Bible verses that describe who invented a character apparently more powerful than your gods?
> 
> 
> Why don't you give us the Bible verses that explains what evil is? I would define the lie told by your gods as evil but as we know, evil would be a contradiction to the notion of the Biblical gods. Although, that puts us into a feedback loop when we see the evil, capricious and punitive acts committed by the Biblical gods toward their ''children''. What was the cause for disobedience as it applied to A&E? If you knew anything about your Bible'ology, you would know that the test put to A&E was not a test at all. If you knew your Bible’ology you would know that in the Genesis fable Yahweh doesn't bother to tell A&E there would be consequences of massive -- in fact -- eternal proportions. Ever notice that, bereft of knowledge of good and evil prior to eating the fruit of the tree, they can't tell what constitutes a "good" or "bad" behavior in the first place?
> 
> Why don't you give us a list of some excuses for condemning A&E and all of humanity for the rather petty crime of fruit theft?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I received Lucifer's background in parochial school.  This was before Genesis.  His story isn't straightforward in the Bible, so that is why I posted the youtube above.  Basically, Lucifer was God's best and most talented angel.  It shows that we will be spirit like in the afterlife, but with perfect spiritual bodies.  We won't be like the angels with wings, but similar in spirit.
> 
> Anyway, Lucifer became so powerful and was the most exalted one that he wanted to be like God and receive equal status.  That is the first sin and why he and his follower angels were cast down upon Earth.  It also created hell as a place for Lucifer (now Satan) and his follower angels in the afterlife.  The key is throughout history we have humans who acquired great power and wealth wanting to be like God in committing their evil.  If you look a four of the ten commandments, it's about being _like God_ or going against God as evil.  The other five are what humans do to each other kind of evil which we readily understand.
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lots of pretty pictures but is YouTube really the best you can do?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are longer documentaries and we have human history of people who acquired great wealth and power and wanted to be like God.  Behind it, we find this was their motivation.  It's the first and greatest evil according to God.
> 
> That's why Adam and Eve only had one commandment.  However, I don't think lasted very long in old heaven.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, apparently you believe that the lucifer character was an ''angel''. Super! The list of supernatural characters gets more complicated.
> 
> So, how is it that Lucifer was apparently more powerful than your gods?
> 
> Lastly, I'm not clear on what you mean by ''old heaven''. Is there a new one?
Click to expand...


Those are the Bible facts.  It's not up to me to believe.  You think "angel" are like those love angels, cute baby angels, or some good looking guy with wings.  The real angels in heaven weren't like that at all.  The takeaway is what was considered Lucifer's sin.

Lucifer didn't think he was more powerful.  He thought he became as powerful like God and wanted to be given God status.  Look at Revelation and the end of the world.  We see that one man becomes the ruler of the world.  Isn't that being "like God?"  That is when Jesus will come again bringing with him the war to end the world.

This Earth was supposed to be heaven.  Since it is dead now, God will take this universe and Earth and fold it up like a scroll and take it away after Jesus comes to clean it up of all sin.  It will be replaced by the new Earth or heaven.

ETA:  It may be hard to believe for the atheists here, but you want multiverses and intelligent aliens.  How weird and unlikely is that .


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> *[Commentary] Very clearly here we can see that evil already exists else it cannot be a tree of knowledge of good and evil. Man at this point in the narrative has nothing to do nor any knowledge of either good or evil. Hence evil must predate Man in order for there to be a choice*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correct.  Evil was created when Lucifer (with free will), the best angel and most powerful, wanted to be _like God_ in heaven.
> 
> Are you starting to get it now?  Somehow I doubt it.
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now, left with choice A or B: I have heard the argument (and it's not a bad one actually): "Well, nowhere does it say God told the serpent he couldn't be evil and it was the disobedience that is the sin, not the act of evil."
> 
> To this I would point out that if sin (disobedience) is _not_ evil, then it must be good, and if it is good, it cannot be an act of disobedience, and once again we're in a feedback loop.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, it is certain you didn't get it and what the evil was.  There was a cause for the disobedience.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're ignoring a very basic premise of the Genesis fable which is; the character called ''Lucifer'' as either, a) created by your gods, b) self created, or, c) was created by some other gods who were super gods to your gods.
> 
> Why don't you give us the Bible verses that describe who invented a character apparently more powerful than your gods?
> 
> 
> Why don't you give us the Bible verses that explains what evil is? I would define the lie told by your gods as evil but as we know, evil would be a contradiction to the notion of the Biblical gods. Although, that puts us into a feedback loop when we see the evil, capricious and punitive acts committed by the Biblical gods toward their ''children''. What was the cause for disobedience as it applied to A&E? If you knew anything about your Bible'ology, you would know that the test put to A&E was not a test at all. If you knew your Bible’ology you would know that in the Genesis fable Yahweh doesn't bother to tell A&E there would be consequences of massive -- in fact -- eternal proportions. Ever notice that, bereft of knowledge of good and evil prior to eating the fruit of the tree, they can't tell what constitutes a "good" or "bad" behavior in the first place?
> 
> Why don't you give us a list of some excuses for condemning A&E and all of humanity for the rather petty crime of fruit theft?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I received Lucifer's background in parochial school.  This was before Genesis.  His story isn't straightforward in the Bible, so that is why I posted the youtube above.  Basically, Lucifer was God's best and most talented angel.  It shows that we will be spirit like in the afterlife, but with perfect spiritual bodies.  We won't be like the angels with wings, but similar in spirit.
> 
> Anyway, Lucifer became so powerful and was the most exalted one that he wanted to be like God and receive equal status.  That is the first sin and why he and his follower angels were cast down upon Earth.  It also created hell as a place for Lucifer (now Satan) and his follower angels in the afterlife.  The key is throughout history we have humans who acquired great power and wealth wanting to be like God in committing their evil.  If you look a four of the ten commandments, it's about being _like God_ or going against God as evil.  The other five are what humans do to each other kind of evil which we readily understand.
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lots of pretty pictures but is YouTube really the best you can do?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are longer documentaries and we have human history of people who acquired great wealth and power and wanted to be like God.  Behind it, we find this was their motivation.  It's the first and greatest evil according to God.
> 
> That's why Adam and Eve only had one commandment.  However, I don't think lasted very long in old heaven.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, apparently you believe that the lucifer character was an ''angel''. Super! The list of supernatural characters gets more complicated.
> 
> So, how is it that Lucifer was apparently more powerful than your gods?
> 
> Lastly, I'm not clear on what you mean by ''old heaven''. Is there a new one?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Those are the Bible facts.  It's not up to me to believe.  You think "angel" are like those love angels, cute baby angels, or some good looking guy with wings.  The real angels in heaven weren't like that at all.  The takeaway is what was considered Lucifer's sin.
> 
> Lucifer didn't think he was more powerful.  He thought he became as powerful like God and wanted to be given God status.  Look at Revelation and the end of the world.  We see that one man becomes the ruler of the world.  Isn't that being "like God?"  That is when Jesus will come again bringing with him the war to end the world.
> 
> This Earth was supposed to be heaven.  Since it is dead now, God will take this universe and Earth and fold it up like a scroll and take it away after Jesus comes to clean it up of all sin.  It will be replaced by the new Earth or heaven.
> 
> ETA:  It may be hard to believe for the atheists here, but you want multiverses and intelligent aliens.  How weird and unlikely is that .
Click to expand...

You're playing fast and loose with what you call "facts" yet you offer no facts. I would suggest that you be honest with yourself and others and because you have no facts to support your various gods, heavens, hells, spirit realms and devils that you acknowledge _those_ obvious facts. What you “personally believe” here is all fine and good, as long as you do not portray it to be anything more than mere “personal belief.” But it is still demonstrably a surrender to ignorance. It is an explicit assertion that the subject is not amenable to reason or evidence; that it is entirely outside the capacity of humans to understand so we should not even try. Of course that would require us to draw all our conclusions not as humans but as sheep, and blindly follow the traditions and tales of those who came before us. That in turn would automatically subject the vast majority of humanity to forever live in error and superstition. You may be happy with such a circumstance. Others of us are not.

One more time, with feeling: There is no reason to believe that any of your gods or their angels have ever existed in any heaven. While your vision of heaven may include fat, naked babies playing harps while floating on clouds, there is no good reason to believe any of this.

To the subject of the fundamentalist Christian idea of hell, the very existence of an eternal hell can only be the result of gratuitous and inexplicable cruelty on the part of your ID creator gods. Were the Christian version of Gods actually not cruel and vindictive then such suffering would be unnecessary. they could simply reward who they choose and cause the others to cease existence. But no! Instead your Gods supposed punishment was an eternity having your flesh burned off over and over again.

Who, exactly, wants multiverses and intelligent aliens? That's a nonsense claim you made while never bothering to offer an intelligible reason why you made such a claim,


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> Who, exactly, wants multiverses and intelligent aliens?



The atheists and their evolutionist scientists badly want multiverses and intelligent aliens because God did not create them.  They do not want to go to hell and be miserable forever.  I would think we would die because of the end of the world, natural, or other causes before multiverses or any alien life is found (unless panspermia but that is doubtful, too).  So far, the atheists are hellbound as there is no evidence for either.

Why is it that science backs up what the Bible says and not evolution?  Could it be that the assumption of billions of years universe and Earth are wrong?  We have the hard evidence of soft tissue in dinosaur fossils.  We have the Precambrian explosion.  We have the CMB and big bang.  We have God as dark energy.  We may have dark matter, too (see below).  We have the explanation for light-slit duality.  We have the evidence for traveling forward in time, but not backward which negates the multiverse of the past. 

A Galaxy with little or no dark matter
"A recent discovery revealed that a nearby galaxy, NGC 1052-DF2, has little or no dark matter.1 NGC 1052-DF2 is a little more than 60 million light years away and is about the same size of the Milky Way. However, NGC 1052-DF2 is much fainter than the Milky Way or other galaxies of similar size. Application of the M/L ratio reveals a lighted mass of about 200 million times that of the sun. The orbital motion of 10 objects, presumed to be globular clusters, produced a dynamic mass only slightly larger than the lighted mass. Considering the likely errors involved, this result is consistent with little or no dark matter in this galaxy. However, this galaxy certainly is large enough for MOND to operate, if MOND is correct. The fact that the dynamic mass of this galaxy is consistent with its lighted mass would seem to eliminate MOND as a viable theory. Paradoxically, the discovery that there is no dark matter in this particular galaxy amounts to evidence that dark matter exists in other galaxies."









						A Galaxy with Little or No Dark Matter
					

The discovery of a galaxy with little or no dark matter disproves MOND. Therefore, the reality of dark matter is more certain.




					answersingenesis.org


----------



## james bond

"For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse." Romans 1:20


----------



## JoeB131

james bond said:


> That's your achilles heel. Anyway, what's done is done, i.e. your will was done (not God's will).
> 
> You know, I do understand why people gloss over the Bible verses. I did the same before being born again. For example, the biggest may be 6,000 year old Earth versus billions of years old Earth. That is a considerable difference. But our history really shows a young Earth, i.e. not much has happened. Thus, it comes down to whether you believe the assumptions of the evolutionary timeline or the Bible.



So why did God create stars Billions or Millions of years ago where the light is only reaching Earth now? 



james bond said:


> All I know about Dahmer is what I read in papers and various articles and now on Reddit. He could be who Hannibal the Cannibal character was based on. What do you have? Do you think he _really_ repented? Or it's just part of your taunting?



Um. No. Hannibal the Cannibal was based on Ed Guien, a killer from the 1950's. So was Norman Bates in Psycho.  So was the Texas Chainsaw Massacre.  

I don't know if he repented or not, but working on the assumption his repentance was sincere, he gets into heaven because Jesus forgives all sins.  



james bond said:


> I think Anne Frank was saved because she was still young and wasn't exposed to the Bible. I never read much beyond her being a hero as a kid, but her diary seems to still hold interest. I mean it's not WW II time anymore, but still people are interested. Could it be because of what you brought up?



Again, this is kind of messed up, isn't it?  So if you aren't 'exposed' to the bible, you get into heaven, but if you are exposed to it and don't live an absolutely perfect life, you are going to Hell?  




james bond said:


> That's interesting. Those memories must be very vivid. How young were you? We all know that death is inevitable, but we don't know when it will be or how. We expect it to happen, but aren't really ready for it. Jesus told us to be ready. In one way, we welcome it as part of our natural life.



Both of my parents died of cancer when I was 19-20.  And pretty much, the Conduct of various Church people I encountered during that time escalated my view of the Church from "This is BS" to "Fuck you and the donkey you road in on."  Like the priest who wouldn't come to the Cemetary for my Dad because he was being cremated.  Or the Nun who said, "God had to have a reason" when my mom died.  Fuck these people.  



james bond said:


> I don't have definite evidence based on what I've read on Anne Frank, but she was one of the better stories about WW II and Nazis. Why would Jews be the ones Hitler tried to genocide? Us Bible readers would know, but it happened very fast during WW II and may not have been known what would happen. I do know that Charles Darwin supported Eugenics and racism (it's in the Descent of Man book), but wasn't against Jews. Hitler was greatly influenced by what he read about Eugenics and social Darwism. Yet, Jews were the ones deported to the Nazi camps. Were the other countries just cooperating with Hitler or afraid of his power? I suppose there were others that Hitler hated, but we remember the Holocaust.



Actually, no.  I know that's one of the Christian go-to positions about the Holocaust.  But here's the real reason why the Germans killed the Jews.  Anti-Semitism is kind of engrained in German culture.   Martin Luther, the father of German Protestantism, wrote a book called "The Jews and their Lies".  Catholic Areas of Germany performed passion plays that directly blamed the Jews for killing Christ.  2000 years of telling Christians that Jews killed their God man, that's why Jews have been oppressed for centuries, nothing to do with Darwin at all. 



james bond said:


> I'm not sure what Christian justice means, but I think you're referring to what Christians did in history and still do today. No doubt, they were vicious in believing they were right in getting _justice_ based on Christianity, but that isn't what Jesus taught. It's still part of Christians being _like God_ and thinking they are right when it comes to what's good and what's evil. That's what Satan told Adam and Eve. They would know what's good and what's bad like God by eating the fruit. It's very easy to fall prey to. We still continue to eat the fruit to this day and probably will continue to do it.



Ah, the "No True Scotsman Fallacy".   All those Christians who did bad things, even with Popes and Bishops telling them to, killing each other over whether or not the Eucharist really turns into Jesus or how many sacrements there are...  when they weren't oppressing Jews and Muslism, they weren't "True" Christians.  Got it.  

Christian Justice is kind of messed up.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who, exactly, wants multiverses and intelligent aliens?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The atheists and their evolutionist scientists badly want multiverses and intelligent aliens because God did not create them.  They do not want to go to hell and be miserable forever.  I would think we would die because of the end of the world, natural, or other causes before multiverses or any alien life is found (unless panspermia but that is doubtful, too).  So far, the atheists are hellbound as there is no evidence for either.
> 
> Why is it that science backs up what the Bible says and not evolution?  Could it be that the assumption of billions of years universe and Earth are wrong?  We have the hard evidence of soft tissue in dinosaur fossils.  We have the Precambrian explosion.  We have the CMB and big bang.  We have God as dark energy.  We may have dark matter, too (see below).  We have the explanation for light-slit duality.  We have the evidence for traveling forward in time, but not backward which negates the multiverse of the past.
> 
> A Galaxy with little or no dark matter
> "A recent discovery revealed that a nearby galaxy, NGC 1052-DF2, has little or no dark matter.1 NGC 1052-DF2 is a little more than 60 million light years away and is about the same size of the Milky Way. However, NGC 1052-DF2 is much fainter than the Milky Way or other galaxies of similar size. Application of the M/L ratio reveals a lighted mass of about 200 million times that of the sun. The orbital motion of 10 objects, presumed to be globular clusters, produced a dynamic mass only slightly larger than the lighted mass. Considering the likely errors involved, this result is consistent with little or no dark matter in this galaxy. However, this galaxy certainly is large enough for MOND to operate, if MOND is correct. The fact that the dynamic mass of this galaxy is consistent with its lighted mass would seem to eliminate MOND as a viable theory. Paradoxically, the discovery that there is no dark matter in this particular galaxy amounts to evidence that dark matter exists in other galaxies."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A Galaxy with Little or No Dark Matter
> 
> 
> The discovery of a galaxy with little or no dark matter disproves MOND. Therefore, the reality of dark matter is more certain.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> answersingenesis.org
Click to expand...

Aside from you, who is claiming that atheists and their evilutionist atheist scientists badly want multiverses and intelligent aliens? I’ve haven’t read of evilutionist atheist scientists demanding anything you claim so I’m left to suspect your rant is something that derives from one or more of the fundamentalist ministries.

It can’t be ruled out that multiverses and intelligent aliens could be the product of gods other than your various gods. How’s that for a kick in the pants? In this earthly realm, there are of course, lots of claimed gods besides your gods. The universe may therefore have designer gods much better at designing than your gods.

Why is it that you claim science “backs up” the Bibles when that is not the case? Can you provide documentary evidence where science backs up a flat earth?

Why would you expect anyone but another fundamentalist Christian to accept anything from AIG? As you know, AIG as well as all of the ID creation ministries require their members agree to a “Statement of Faith” that predefines their conclusions about matters related to science exploration. As you know, none of the ID Creation ministries do research. None of the ID Creation ministries publish in peer reviewed journals. Objective observers understand that the ID Creation ministries will invariably ignore facts and data to press their religious bias.


----------



## Bernhard

If your faith in Jesus and Christianity depends on whether every single word written in the Bible is literal scientific truth, you've lost that battle centuries ago.

Which is sad, because I believe there are many ways to believe in Jesus and the truth of the Bible, without having to mistake it for science.


----------



## james bond

JoeB131 said:


> So why did God create stars Billions or Millions of years ago where the light is only reaching Earth now?



The light is time dilated.  Humans only assume 4.5 billion years because of Darwinism.  For example, the age of the Earth kept getting older over time.  3 billion years wasn't enough.  Do you know who figured out 4.5 billion years and how?  

This question cannot be answered with certainty.  It's based on what one assumes.  YEC assume one day = 24 hrs in the Bible.



JoeB131 said:


> I don't know if he repented or not, but working on the assumption his repentance was sincere, he gets into heaven because Jesus forgives all sins.



We don't know for sure since Jesus is the only one to look into his heart.  Was Dahmer baptized, too?



JoeB131 said:


> Again, this is kind of messed up, isn't it? So if you aren't 'exposed' to the bible, you get into heaven, but if you are exposed to it and don't live an absolutely perfect life, you are going to Hell?



Usually, young children are innocent but she was a teen.  It's more about what you think, know, and understand I think.  Plenty of verses in the Bible which excuse people because they weren't capable.  Her life was unusual, difficult, sad, and heartbreaking.  It probably shows the evil of Hitler and his Nazis more.

As for the Buddhists, most won't get in unless they put trust in Jesus through what they heard about him and observed in nature.  If they did that, then they could be of different religion and still get in.  They probably knew the differences as adults.  I dunno.  These aren't easy questions to answer.

I did a little more looking into this.

*"For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made.  So they are without excuse." Romans 1:20*

Thus, if they found something more and believed sincerely in it, even though different religion, then they could get it.  Obviously, atheism would be a conflict right off the bat.  They would not acknowledge Romans 1:20 and deny it.

Today, atheists think they'll get in if they didn't do anything wrong if God turns out to be true.  Many will think they've reached the gates of heaven when it isn't that at all.  The Buddhists have the idea of Nirvana and karma, so they have some idea of heaven and hell.  Each individual is faced with what exists in nature.  I dunno for sure.



JoeB131 said:


> Both of my parents died of cancer when I was 19-20. And pretty much, the Conduct of various Church people I encountered during that time escalated my view of the Church from "This is BS" to "Fuck you and the donkey you road in on." Like the priest who wouldn't come to the Cemetary for my Dad because he was being cremated. Or the Nun who said, "God had to have a reason" when my mom died. Fuck these people.



Sorry about your experience.  I can see why you rejected that church and Catholicism.

It's difficult for me to say where these people were coming from because now I know Catholicism isn't Christianity.  I didn't know when I went to parochial elementary school.  It's their own version of Christianity and may lead people astray.  For example, we hear about Pope Francis and his words which go against what the Bible says.  Or salvation requires much more with Catholicsm.  Why is it that way and goes further that what the Bible says?  We come to the conclusion, it isn't true Christianity and may lead people astray.  But even this, I didn't realize until much later.

I think what Romans 1:20 states above is true in that nature reveals God to us.  It's from other people that we are swayed away.






Maybe it was my upbringing, but even as a kid I knew there was something more from observing the world.  Just the sky, trees, the great outdoors, the way things worked.  Nature talks, so my trust in God was there.  It is an individual path.  I just didn't know which religion, so just followed Catholicism at first.



JoeB131 said:


> Actually, no. I know that's one of the Christian go-to positions about the Holocaust. But here's the real reason why the Germans killed the Jews. Anti-Semitism is kind of engrained in German culture. Martin Luther, the father of German Protestantism, wrote a book called "The Jews and their Lies". Catholic Areas of Germany performed passion plays that directly blamed the Jews for killing Christ. 2000 years of telling Christians that Jews killed their God man, that's why Jews have been oppressed for centuries, nothing to do with Darwin at all.



That's difficult for me to say because I grew up around German-American people.  I think many were Catholic, but I dunno.  Maybe some were Nazi or still had Nazi sympathies.  I didn't know if they still hated Jews because they didn't talk about it to me.  If they had strong feelings, then they probably would have.

Are we talking about the same Martin Luther?  He was a German monk who wrote the 95 Theses and went against the Catholic church.  He was the one who started Lutheranism and true Christianity (he was ex-communicated by Pope Leo X).

"*The 95 Theses*
Committed to the idea that salvation could be reached through faith and by divine grace only, Luther vigorously objected to the corrupt practice of selling indulgences. Acting on this belief, he wrote the “Disputation on the Power and Efficacy of Indulgences,” also known as “The 95 Theses,” a list of questions and propositions for debate. Popular legend has it that on October 31, 1517 Luther defiantly nailed a copy of his 95 Theses to the door of the Wittenberg Castle church. The reality was probably not so dramatic; Luther more likely hung the document on the door of the church matter-of-factly to announce the ensuing academic discussion around it that he was organizing.

The 95 Theses, which would later become the foundation of the Protestant Reformation, were written in a remarkably humble and academic tone, questioning rather than accusing. The overall thrust of the document was nonetheless quite provocative. The first two of the theses contained Luther’s central idea, that God intended believers to seek repentance and that faith alone, and not deeds, would lead to salvation. The other 93 theses, a number of them directly criticizing the practice of indulgences, supported these first two."









						Martin Luther and the 95 Theses
					

Born in Eisleben, Germany, in 1483, Martin Luther went on to become one of Western history’s most significant figures. Luther spent his early years in relative




					www.history.com
				




As for his anti-Semitism it came after failing to convert the Jews to Lutheranism, but tell me more.

OTOH, Darwin's racism led directly to social Darwinism, taking "survival of the fittest" from Herbert Spencer and putting it in his first book, and Hitler using survival of the fittest as his credo.  Hitler adopted eugenics in finding ways to kill the Jews.  We still have Planned Parenthood to this day in black and poor neighborhoods.  What a disgusting, filthy POS Darwin was!!!  He may as well have been skinned alive and boiled in oil had people knew.

What we know is that Darwin was wrong with most of his hypotheses.  He and his family were racist (read The Descent of Man)  and he advocated it and it was passed down as it became evolution.





__





						Eugenics in the United States | Cultural Anthropology
					






					courses.lumenlearning.com
				




"The movement considered many other attributes to be hereditary — from feeblemindedness, pauperism and criminality to promiscuity among women and even love of the sea. Love of the sea was pretty much a curiosity, but people with the rest of those "undesired" traits were in the sights of the movement as it sought to prevent them from marrying or having children, often through forced or coerced sterilization.

The scrapbook at the American Philosophical Society features eugenics activities at several state fairs: public presentations, examination buildings and "fitter family contests."

In a way, this makes perfect sense. Born out of a society that was still making the transition from agricultural to industrial, much of the eugenics argument was based on the idea that we selectively breed our livestock for desired traits; why not do the same with human society? As one sign asks, "Are you a thoroughbred?"










It was the Christians who fought eugenics in America.

"*Anti-Eugenics Sentiment*
Anti-eugenics sentiment began to appear after 1910 and intensified during the 1930s. Most commonly it was based on religious grounds. For example, the 1930 papal encyclical _Casti connubii_ condemned reproductive sterilization, though it did not specifically prohibit positive eugenic attempts to amplify the inheritance of beneficial traits. Many Protestant writings sought to reconcile age-old Christian warnings about the heritable sins of the father to pro-eugenic ideals. Indeed, most of the religion-based popular writings of the period supported positive means of improving the physical and moral makeup of humanity."

Eugenics still exists to this day as new Eugenics.  Racism is still alive and well with evolutionists.

"Applications of the Human Genome Project are often referred to as “Brave New World” genetics or the “new eugenics,” in part because they have helped to dramatically increase knowledge of human genetics. In addition, 21st-century technologies such as gene editing, which can potentially be used to treat disease or to alter traits, have further renewed concerns. However, the ethical, legal, and social implications of such tools are monitored much more closely than were early 20th-century eugenics programs. Applications generally are more focused on the reduction of genetic diseases than on improving intelligence.

Still, with or without the use of the term, many eugenics-related concerns are reemerging as a new group of individuals decide how to regulate the application of genetics science and technology. This gene-directed activity, in attempting to improve upon nature, may not be that distant from what Galton implied in 1909 when he described eugenics as the “study of agencies, under social control, which may improve or impair” future generations."









						eugenics - Popular support for eugenics
					

During the 1930s eugenics gained considerable popular support across the United States. Hygiene courses in public schools and eugenics courses in colleges spread eugenic-minded values to many. A eugenics exhibit titled “Pedigree-Study in Man” was featured at the Chicago World’s Fair in 1933–34...



					www.britannica.com
				






JoeB131 said:


> Ah, the "No True Scotsman Fallacy". All those Christians who did bad things, even with Popes and Bishops telling them to, killing each other over whether or not the Eucharist really turns into Jesus or how many sacrements there are... when they weren't oppressing Jews and Muslism, they weren't "True" Christians. Got it.
> 
> Christian Justice is kind of messed up.



You're lumping Catholics and Christians together.  Christians don't have popes and bishops.  What happened with Lutheranism and his 95 Theses?  Maybe you missed a lot of what Martin Luther and his 95 Theses did (he even translated the Bible into German) and are just focusing on the negative aspects of ML and today's Christianity.


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who, exactly, wants multiverses and intelligent aliens?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The atheists and their evolutionist scientists badly want multiverses and intelligent aliens because God did not create them.  They do not want to go to hell and be miserable forever.  I would think we would die because of the end of the world, natural, or other causes before multiverses or any alien life is found (unless panspermia but that is doubtful, too).  So far, the atheists are hellbound as there is no evidence for either.
> 
> Why is it that science backs up what the Bible says and not evolution?  Could it be that the assumption of billions of years universe and Earth are wrong?  We have the hard evidence of soft tissue in dinosaur fossils.  We have the Precambrian explosion.  We have the CMB and big bang.  We have God as dark energy.  We may have dark matter, too (see below).  We have the explanation for light-slit duality.  We have the evidence for traveling forward in time, but not backward which negates the multiverse of the past.
> 
> A Galaxy with little or no dark matter
> "A recent discovery revealed that a nearby galaxy, NGC 1052-DF2, has little or no dark matter.1 NGC 1052-DF2 is a little more than 60 million light years away and is about the same size of the Milky Way. However, NGC 1052-DF2 is much fainter than the Milky Way or other galaxies of similar size. Application of the M/L ratio reveals a lighted mass of about 200 million times that of the sun. The orbital motion of 10 objects, presumed to be globular clusters, produced a dynamic mass only slightly larger than the lighted mass. Considering the likely errors involved, this result is consistent with little or no dark matter in this galaxy. However, this galaxy certainly is large enough for MOND to operate, if MOND is correct. The fact that the dynamic mass of this galaxy is consistent with its lighted mass would seem to eliminate MOND as a viable theory. Paradoxically, the discovery that there is no dark matter in this particular galaxy amounts to evidence that dark matter exists in other galaxies."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A Galaxy with Little or No Dark Matter
> 
> 
> The discovery of a galaxy with little or no dark matter disproves MOND. Therefore, the reality of dark matter is more certain.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> answersingenesis.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Aside from you, who is claiming that atheists and their evilutionist atheist scientists badly want multiverses and intelligent aliens? I’ve haven’t read of evilutionist atheist scientists demanding anything you claim so I’m left to suspect your rant is something that derives from one or more of the fundamentalist ministries.
> 
> It can’t be ruled out that multiverses and intelligent aliens could be the product of gods other than your various gods. How’s that for a kick in the pants? In this earthly realm, there are of course, lots of claimed gods besides your gods. The universe may therefore have designer gods much better at designing than your gods.
> 
> Why is it that you claim science “backs up” the Bibles when that is not the case? Can you provide documentary evidence where science backs up a flat earth?
> 
> Why would you expect anyone but another fundamentalist Christian to accept anything from AIG? As you know, AIG as well as all of the ID creation ministries require their members agree to a “Statement of Faith” that predefines their conclusions about matters related to science exploration. As you know, none of the ID Creation ministries do research. None of the ID Creation ministries publish in peer reviewed journals. Objective observers understand that the ID Creation ministries will invariably ignore facts and data to press their religious bias.
Click to expand...


Nobody takes you seriously here because you continue to talk about the flat Earth.


----------



## james bond

Bernhard said:


> If your faith in Jesus and Christianity depends on whether every single word written in the Bible is literal scientific truth, you've lost that battle centuries ago.
> 
> Which is sad, because I believe there are many ways to believe in Jesus and the truth of the Bible, without having to mistake it for science.



I already gave you the evidence.

"Why is it that science backs up what the Bible says and not evolution? Could it be that the assumption of billions of years universe and Earth are wrong? We have the hard evidence of soft tissue in dinosaur fossils. We have the Precambrian explosion. We have the CMB and big bang. We have God as dark energy. We may have dark matter, too (see below). We have the explanation for light-slit duality. We have the evidence for traveling forward in time, but not backward which negates the multiverse of the past."

Furthermore, there is absolutely no evidence for intelligent aliens, multiverses, and time travel back in time.  You are wrong and a sad little man because you believe in fairy tales.


----------



## danielpalos

james bond said:


> "Why is it that science backs up what the Bible says and not evolution?


Where are dinosaurs mentioned in the bible?


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who, exactly, wants multiverses and intelligent aliens?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The atheists and their evolutionist scientists badly want multiverses and intelligent aliens because God did not create them.  They do not want to go to hell and be miserable forever.  I would think we would die because of the end of the world, natural, or other causes before multiverses or any alien life is found (unless panspermia but that is doubtful, too).  So far, the atheists are hellbound as there is no evidence for either.
> 
> Why is it that science backs up what the Bible says and not evolution?  Could it be that the assumption of billions of years universe and Earth are wrong?  We have the hard evidence of soft tissue in dinosaur fossils.  We have the Precambrian explosion.  We have the CMB and big bang.  We have God as dark energy.  We may have dark matter, too (see below).  We have the explanation for light-slit duality.  We have the evidence for traveling forward in time, but not backward which negates the multiverse of the past.
> 
> A Galaxy with little or no dark matter
> "A recent discovery revealed that a nearby galaxy, NGC 1052-DF2, has little or no dark matter.1 NGC 1052-DF2 is a little more than 60 million light years away and is about the same size of the Milky Way. However, NGC 1052-DF2 is much fainter than the Milky Way or other galaxies of similar size. Application of the M/L ratio reveals a lighted mass of about 200 million times that of the sun. The orbital motion of 10 objects, presumed to be globular clusters, produced a dynamic mass only slightly larger than the lighted mass. Considering the likely errors involved, this result is consistent with little or no dark matter in this galaxy. However, this galaxy certainly is large enough for MOND to operate, if MOND is correct. The fact that the dynamic mass of this galaxy is consistent with its lighted mass would seem to eliminate MOND as a viable theory. Paradoxically, the discovery that there is no dark matter in this particular galaxy amounts to evidence that dark matter exists in other galaxies."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A Galaxy with Little or No Dark Matter
> 
> 
> The discovery of a galaxy with little or no dark matter disproves MOND. Therefore, the reality of dark matter is more certain.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> answersingenesis.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Aside from you, who is claiming that atheists and their evilutionist atheist scientists badly want multiverses and intelligent aliens? I’ve haven’t read of evilutionist atheist scientists demanding anything you claim so I’m left to suspect your rant is something that derives from one or more of the fundamentalist ministries.
> 
> It can’t be ruled out that multiverses and intelligent aliens could be the product of gods other than your various gods. How’s that for a kick in the pants? In this earthly realm, there are of course, lots of claimed gods besides your gods. The universe may therefore have designer gods much better at designing than your gods.
> 
> Why is it that you claim science “backs up” the Bibles when that is not the case? Can you provide documentary evidence where science backs up a flat earth?
> 
> Why would you expect anyone but another fundamentalist Christian to accept anything from AIG? As you know, AIG as well as all of the ID creation ministries require their members agree to a “Statement of Faith” that predefines their conclusions about matters related to science exploration. As you know, none of the ID Creation ministries do research. None of the ID Creation ministries publish in peer reviewed journals. Objective observers understand that the ID Creation ministries will invariably ignore facts and data to press their religious bias.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nobody takes you seriously here because you continue to talk about the flat Earth.
Click to expand...

That was a very ineffective way of sidestepping those difficult questions which confound religionists.


----------



## james bond

danielpalos said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Why is it that science backs up what the Bible says and not evolution?
> 
> 
> 
> Where are dinosaurs mentioned in the bible?
Click to expand...


Dinosaurs, the word, didn't exist back then.  They were referred as leviathan or behemoth in the bible.





__





						What Does the Bible Say About Dinosaurs?
					

Bible verses about Dinosaurs




					www.openbible.info


----------



## JoeB131

james bond said:


> The light is time dilated. Humans only assume 4.5 billion years because of Darwinism.



Guy, this is so absurd it's laughable.   WE KNOW HOW FAST LIGHT TRAVELS.  We know that stars at the other end of the galaxy are 185,000 light years away.  That means the light from them now we are seeing was emitted by their stars 185,000 years ago. 





Not how the universe actually works...


----------



## JoeB131

james bond said:


> We don't know for sure since Jesus is the only one to look into his heart. Was Dahmer baptized, too?



Yes, he was in prison.. Lots of guys find Jesus in prison, for some reason.  



james bond said:


> It's difficult for me to say where these people were coming from because now I know Catholicism isn't Christianity. I didn't know when I went to parochial elementary school. It's their own version of Christianity and may lead people astray. For example, we hear about Pope Francis and his words which go against what the Bible says. Or salvation requires much more with Catholicsm. Why is it that way and goes further that what the Bible says? We come to the conclusion, it isn't true Christianity and may lead people astray. But even this, I didn't realize until much later.



They were coming from the same place you are.... religious fanaticism.  

As far as Pope Francis going against what the bible says, there are probably a whole bunch of things in the Bible you go against... I'm sure you haven't stoned any of your neighbors for working on the Sabbath or burned any witches lately.    

The thing about morality in the Bible.  When it came to burning witches or owning slaves, God didn't change his mind, so we changed ours.  



james bond said:


> Are we talking about the same Martin Luther? He was a German monk who wrote the 95 Theses and went against the Catholic church. He was the one who started Lutheranism and true Christianity (he was ex-communicated by Pope Leo X).



Yes, and he also wrote this shit. 









						On the Jews and Their Lies - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org
				





In the treatise, he argues that Jewish synagogues and schools be set on fire, their prayer books destroyed, rabbis forbidden to preach, homes burned, and property and money confiscated. They should be shown no mercy or kindness,[2] afforded no legal protection,[3] and "these poisonous envenomed worms" should be drafted into forced labor or expelled for all time.[4] He also seems to advocate their murder, writing "[W]e are at fault in not slaying them".[5]

The book may have had an impact on creating antisemitic Germanic thought through the Middle Ages.[6] During World War II, copies of the book were held up by Nazis at rallies, and the prevailing scholarly consensus is that it had a significant impact on the Holocaust.[7] Since then, the book has been denounced by many Lutheran churches.[8]






james bond said:


> OTOH, Darwin's racism led directly to social Darwinism, taking "survival of the fittest" from Herbert Spencer and putting it in his first book, and Hitler using survival of the fittest as his credo. Hitler adopted eugenics in finding ways to kill the Jews. We still have Planned Parenthood to this day in black and poor neighborhoods. What a disgusting, filthy POS Darwin was!!! He may as well have been skinned alive and boiled in oil had people knew.



Wow, so many things wrong with this statement.  

First, Hitler didn't believe in Darwinian evolution.    He didn't believe Germans (Aryans) evolved from lower animals...   

Second, as stated above, German anti-Semitism came from Lutheranism.   

Third, "Survival of the Fittest" is often taken completely out of context.  

Fourth, Planned Parenthood actually opposed abortion in Margaret Sangers day, when Eugenics had more scientific credibility than it does now.  

Of course, we still practice Eugenics.  We abort fetuses with genetic deformities, and we genetically screen potential parents for a whole array of diseases such as Cystic Fibrosis and Tay-Sachs syndrome.  Science is a tool, and like any tool, it can be misused or misapplied.


----------



## james bond

JoeB131 said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> The light is time dilated. Humans only assume 4.5 billion years because of Darwinism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Guy, this is so absurd it's laughable.   WE KNOW HOW FAST LIGHT TRAVELS.  We know that stars at the other end of the galaxy are 185,000 light years away.  That means the light from them now we are seeing was emitted by their stars 185,000 years ago.
> 
> View attachment 430472
> Not how the universe actually works...
Click to expand...


Prove it wanker.


----------



## james bond

JoeB131 said:


> Yes, he was in prison.. Lots of guys find Jesus in prison, for some reason.



They prolly don't have much choice like the poor.  You do and turn atheist and wrong.



JoeB131 said:


> They were coming from the same place you are.... religious fanaticism.
> 
> As far as Pope Francis going against what the bible says, there are probably a whole bunch of things in the Bible you go against... I'm sure you haven't stoned any of your neighbors for working on the Sabbath or burned any witches lately.
> 
> The thing about morality in the Bible. When it came to burning witches or owning slaves, God didn't change his mind, so we changed ours.



Heh.  You're the one discussing religion in S&T and say I'm a fanatic.  Why can't you discuss multiverse and aliens?  Because you lost already?



JoeB131 said:


> Yes, and he also wrote this shit.



I'll read when I get a chance.  We can discuss in R&T.


----------



## james bond

JoeB131 said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> OTOH, Darwin's racism led directly to social Darwinism, taking "survival of the fittest" from Herbert Spencer and putting it in his first book, and Hitler using survival of the fittest as his credo. Hitler adopted eugenics in finding ways to kill the Jews. We still have Planned Parenthood to this day in black and poor neighborhoods. What a disgusting, filthy POS Darwin was!!! He may as well have been skinned alive and boiled in oil had people knew.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, so many things wrong with this statement.
> 
> First, Hitler didn't believe in Darwinian evolution.    He didn't believe Germans (Aryans) evolved from lower animals...
> 
> Second, as stated above, German anti-Semitism came from Lutheranism.
> 
> Third, "Survival of the Fittest" is often taken completely out of context.
> 
> Fourth, Planned Parenthood actually opposed abortion in Margaret Sangers day, when Eugenics had more scientific credibility than it does now.
> 
> Of course, we still practice Eugenics.  We abort fetuses with genetic deformities, and we genetically screen potential parents for a whole array of diseases such as Cystic Fibrosis and Tay-Sachs syndrome.  Science is a tool, and like any tool, it can be misused or misapplied.
Click to expand...


You're just wrong and hypocritical.  I just exposed you and atheists.  Look at you and your defending racism.  Just face it that you bow down and kiss the feet of a racist mass murderer like Darwin and his racist family.


----------



## JoeB131

james bond said:


> Heh. You're the one discussing religion in S&T and say I'm a fanatic. Why can't you discuss multiverse and aliens? Because you lost already?



Because I don't believe in multi-verses and frankly, I've said many times I think UFO's are an urban mythology. 



james bond said:


> You're just wrong and hypocritical. I just exposed you and atheists. Look at you and your defending racism. Just face it that you bow down and kiss the feet of a racist mass murderer like Darwin and his racist family.



Uh, Darwin didn't kill anyone, as opposed to Christians, who've committed one genocide after another.  The old joke was "When the white man came, they had the Bible and we had the land.  Then they had the land and we have the Bible."


----------



## danielpalos

james bond said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Why is it that science backs up what the Bible says and not evolution?
> 
> 
> 
> Where are dinosaurs mentioned in the bible?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dinosaurs, the word, didn't exist back then.  They were referred as leviathan or behemoth in the bible.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What Does the Bible Say About Dinosaurs?
> 
> 
> Bible verses about Dinosaurs
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.openbible.info
Click to expand...

When the Titans lived and walked on Earth?


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> OTOH, Darwin's racism led directly to social Darwinism, taking "survival of the fittest" from Herbert Spencer and putting it in his first book, and Hitler using survival of the fittest as his credo. Hitler adopted eugenics in finding ways to kill the Jews. We still have Planned Parenthood to this day in black and poor neighborhoods. What a disgusting, filthy POS Darwin was!!! He may as well have been skinned alive and boiled in oil had people knew.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, so many things wrong with this statement.
> 
> First, Hitler didn't believe in Darwinian evolution.    He didn't believe Germans (Aryans) evolved from lower animals...
> 
> Second, as stated above, German anti-Semitism came from Lutheranism.
> 
> Third, "Survival of the Fittest" is often taken completely out of context.
> 
> Fourth, Planned Parenthood actually opposed abortion in Margaret Sangers day, when Eugenics had more scientific credibility than it does now.
> 
> Of course, we still practice Eugenics.  We abort fetuses with genetic deformities, and we genetically screen potential parents for a whole array of diseases such as Cystic Fibrosis and Tay-Sachs syndrome.  Science is a tool, and like any tool, it can be misused or misapplied.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're just wrong and hypocritical.  I just exposed you and atheists.  Look at you and your defending racism.  Just face it that you bow down and kiss the feet of a racist mass murderer like Darwin and his racist family.
Click to expand...

Darwin was a mass murderer? That’s news I was not aware of. I would be curious to see some facts about that.


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> OTOH, Darwin's racism led directly to social Darwinism, taking "survival of the fittest" from Herbert Spencer and putting it in his first book, and Hitler using survival of the fittest as his credo. Hitler adopted eugenics in finding ways to kill the Jews. We still have Planned Parenthood to this day in black and poor neighborhoods. What a disgusting, filthy POS Darwin was!!! He may as well have been skinned alive and boiled in oil had people knew.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, so many things wrong with this statement.
> 
> First, Hitler didn't believe in Darwinian evolution.    He didn't believe Germans (Aryans) evolved from lower animals...
> 
> Second, as stated above, German anti-Semitism came from Lutheranism.
> 
> Third, "Survival of the Fittest" is often taken completely out of context.
> 
> Fourth, Planned Parenthood actually opposed abortion in Margaret Sangers day, when Eugenics had more scientific credibility than it does now.
> 
> Of course, we still practice Eugenics.  We abort fetuses with genetic deformities, and we genetically screen potential parents for a whole array of diseases such as Cystic Fibrosis and Tay-Sachs syndrome.  Science is a tool, and like any tool, it can be misused or misapplied.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're just wrong and hypocritical.  I just exposed you and atheists.  Look at you and your defending racism.  Just face it that you bow down and kiss the feet of a racist mass murderer like Darwin and his racist family.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Darwin was a mass murderer? That’s news I was not aware of. I would be curious to see some facts about that.
Click to expand...


"*Adolf Hitler and Eugenics*
As horrific as forced sterilization in America was, nothing compared to Adolf Hitler’s eugenic experiments leading up to and during World War II. And Hitler didn’t come up with the concept of a superior Aryan race all on his own. In fact, he referred to American eugenics in his 1934 book, _Mein Kampf_.

In _Mein Kampf_, Hitler declares non-Aryan races such as Jews and gypsies as inferior. He believed Germans should do everything possible, including genocide, to make sure their gene pool stayed pure. And in 1933, the Nazis created the Law for the Prevention of Hereditarily Diseased Offspring which resulted in thousands of forced sterilizations."

Darwin may as well have been SATAN himself.  What an evil person he was.  He belongs in the lowest of depths.  Did you read his racist The Descent of Man book?  Why do you think people like you believe you came from monkeys and humans started in Africa?  He supported wholeheartedly Eugenics which came from his relative and his theories.









						Eugenics
					

Eugenics is the practice or advocacy of improving the human species by selectively mating people with specific desirable hereditary traits. It aims to reduce




					www.history.com


----------



## danielpalos

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> OTOH, Darwin's racism led directly to social Darwinism, taking "survival of the fittest" from Herbert Spencer and putting it in his first book, and Hitler using survival of the fittest as his credo. Hitler adopted eugenics in finding ways to kill the Jews. We still have Planned Parenthood to this day in black and poor neighborhoods. What a disgusting, filthy POS Darwin was!!! He may as well have been skinned alive and boiled in oil had people knew.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, so many things wrong with this statement.
> 
> First, Hitler didn't believe in Darwinian evolution.    He didn't believe Germans (Aryans) evolved from lower animals...
> 
> Second, as stated above, German anti-Semitism came from Lutheranism.
> 
> Third, "Survival of the Fittest" is often taken completely out of context.
> 
> Fourth, Planned Parenthood actually opposed abortion in Margaret Sangers day, when Eugenics had more scientific credibility than it does now.
> 
> Of course, we still practice Eugenics.  We abort fetuses with genetic deformities, and we genetically screen potential parents for a whole array of diseases such as Cystic Fibrosis and Tay-Sachs syndrome.  Science is a tool, and like any tool, it can be misused or misapplied.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're just wrong and hypocritical.  I just exposed you and atheists.  Look at you and your defending racism.  Just face it that you bow down and kiss the feet of a racist mass murderer like Darwin and his racist family.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Darwin was a mass murderer? That’s news I was not aware of. I would be curious to see some facts about that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "*Adolf Hitler and Eugenics*
> As horrific as forced sterilization in America was, nothing compared to Adolf Hitler’s eugenic experiments leading up to and during World War II. And Hitler didn’t come up with the concept of a superior Aryan race all on his own. In fact, he referred to American eugenics in his 1934 book, _Mein Kampf_.
> 
> In _Mein Kampf_, Hitler declares non-Aryan races such as Jews and gypsies as inferior. He believed Germans should do everything possible, including genocide, to make sure their gene pool stayed pure. And in 1933, the Nazis created the Law for the Prevention of Hereditarily Diseased Offspring which resulted in thousands of forced sterilizations."
> 
> Darwin may as well have been SATAN himself.  What an evil person he was.  He belongs in the lowest of depths.  Did you read his racist The Descent of Man book?  Why do you think people like you believe you came from monkeys and humans started in Africa?  He supported wholeheartedly Eugenics which came from his relative and his theories.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eugenics
> 
> 
> Eugenics is the practice or advocacy of improving the human species by selectively mating people with specific desirable hereditary traits. It aims to reduce
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.history.com
Click to expand...

Some have claimed the only reason the US gave up on Eugenics is Because the Nazis liked it.


----------



## james bond

danielpalos said:


> Some have claimed the only reason the US gave up on Eugenics is Because the Nazis liked it.



Eugenics which Darwin supported took it too far and Hitler took it even further to genocide.  I think the US people wanted some racism because they were afraid of immigration.


----------



## danielpalos

james bond said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Some have claimed the only reason the US gave up on Eugenics is Because the Nazis liked it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eugenics which Darwin supported took it too far and Hitler took it even further to genocide.  I think the US people wanted some racism because they were afraid of immigration.
Click to expand...

Guilty conscience?


----------



## james bond

JoeB131 said:


> Because I don't believe in multi-verses and frankly, I've said many times I think UFO's are an urban mythology.



Finally, some science.  I think the multiverse has been developed further in order to explain how our universe could start.  The atheist scientists couldn't explain what was there before the big bang as God, the supernatural, KCA, and the Bible are the best arguments for what existed before the big bang and spacetime.

The atheist scientists also want intelligent aliens as it would show that abiogenesis occurs in other places besides Earth.



JoeB131 said:


> Uh, Darwin didn't kill anyone, as opposed to Christians, who've committed one genocide after another. The old joke was "When the white man came, they had the Bible and we had the land. Then they had the land and we have the Bible."



Darwin wanted it just as much as his cousin and his family.  This is one of the reasons for why uniformitarianism and Darwinism were formulated and accepted.  It isn't a coincidence that Darwin loved "the survival of the fittest" of Herbert Spencer and Hitler embraced it as well.  Like minds.  Evil minds.


----------



## danielpalos

james bond said:


> The atheist scientists also want intelligent aliens as it would show that abiogenesis occurs in other places besides Earth.


Why would abiogenesis not happen on other planets, if it happened on Earth?

What if, there is at least one intelligent life form in any given galaxy.  The law of large numbers can still apply.


----------



## james bond

danielpalos said:


> Guilty conscience?



What do you mean?


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> OTOH, Darwin's racism led directly to social Darwinism, taking "survival of the fittest" from Herbert Spencer and putting it in his first book, and Hitler using survival of the fittest as his credo. Hitler adopted eugenics in finding ways to kill the Jews. We still have Planned Parenthood to this day in black and poor neighborhoods. What a disgusting, filthy POS Darwin was!!! He may as well have been skinned alive and boiled in oil had people knew.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, so many things wrong with this statement.
> 
> First, Hitler didn't believe in Darwinian evolution.    He didn't believe Germans (Aryans) evolved from lower animals...
> 
> Second, as stated above, German anti-Semitism came from Lutheranism.
> 
> Third, "Survival of the Fittest" is often taken completely out of context.
> 
> Fourth, Planned Parenthood actually opposed abortion in Margaret Sangers day, when Eugenics had more scientific credibility than it does now.
> 
> Of course, we still practice Eugenics.  We abort fetuses with genetic deformities, and we genetically screen potential parents for a whole array of diseases such as Cystic Fibrosis and Tay-Sachs syndrome.  Science is a tool, and like any tool, it can be misused or misapplied.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're just wrong and hypocritical.  I just exposed you and atheists.  Look at you and your defending racism.  Just face it that you bow down and kiss the feet of a racist mass murderer like Darwin and his racist family.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Darwin was a mass murderer? That’s news I was not aware of. I would be curious to see some facts about that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "*Adolf Hitler and Eugenics*
> As horrific as forced sterilization in America was, nothing compared to Adolf Hitler’s eugenic experiments leading up to and during World War II. And Hitler didn’t come up with the concept of a superior Aryan race all on his own. In fact, he referred to American eugenics in his 1934 book, _Mein Kampf_.
> 
> In _Mein Kampf_, Hitler declares non-Aryan races such as Jews and gypsies as inferior. He believed Germans should do everything possible, including genocide, to make sure their gene pool stayed pure. And in 1933, the Nazis created the Law for the Prevention of Hereditarily Diseased Offspring which resulted in thousands of forced sterilizations."
> 
> Darwin may as well have been SATAN himself.  What an evil person he was.  He belongs in the lowest of depths.  Did you read his racist The Descent of Man book?  Why do you think people like you believe you came from monkeys and humans started in Africa?  He supported wholeheartedly Eugenics which came from his relative and his theories.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eugenics
> 
> 
> Eugenics is the practice or advocacy of improving the human species by selectively mating people with specific desirable hereditary traits. It aims to reduce
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.history.com
Click to expand...

It seems your frantic attempt to link Darwin with eugenics was a total bust. 

The hyper-religious often attempt to make such a connection because their anti-science views cause them to attack the science of evolutionary biology at their every opportunity. 

The source of the label ''social Darwinism'' was Herbert Spencer. 

You might attach the notion of eugenics to Hitler who was raised a Catholic and, as you will attempt to rewrite history, we know that Hazi ideology wad deeply rooted in Christianity. Hitler was never excommunicated from the Church, BTW.


----------



## danielpalos

james bond said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Guilty conscience?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What do you mean?
Click to expand...

Why worry about Immigration instead of the, Grace of God?  We have a McCarthy era phrase in our pledge now.


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> OTOH, Darwin's racism led directly to social Darwinism, taking "survival of the fittest" from Herbert Spencer and putting it in his first book, and Hitler using survival of the fittest as his credo. Hitler adopted eugenics in finding ways to kill the Jews. We still have Planned Parenthood to this day in black and poor neighborhoods. What a disgusting, filthy POS Darwin was!!! He may as well have been skinned alive and boiled in oil had people knew.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, so many things wrong with this statement.
> 
> First, Hitler didn't believe in Darwinian evolution.    He didn't believe Germans (Aryans) evolved from lower animals...
> 
> Second, as stated above, German anti-Semitism came from Lutheranism.
> 
> Third, "Survival of the Fittest" is often taken completely out of context.
> 
> Fourth, Planned Parenthood actually opposed abortion in Margaret Sangers day, when Eugenics had more scientific credibility than it does now.
> 
> Of course, we still practice Eugenics.  We abort fetuses with genetic deformities, and we genetically screen potential parents for a whole array of diseases such as Cystic Fibrosis and Tay-Sachs syndrome.  Science is a tool, and like any tool, it can be misused or misapplied.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're just wrong and hypocritical.  I just exposed you and atheists.  Look at you and your defending racism.  Just face it that you bow down and kiss the feet of a racist mass murderer like Darwin and his racist family.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Darwin was a mass murderer? That’s news I was not aware of. I would be curious to see some facts about that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "*Adolf Hitler and Eugenics*
> As horrific as forced sterilization in America was, nothing compared to Adolf Hitler’s eugenic experiments leading up to and during World War II. And Hitler didn’t come up with the concept of a superior Aryan race all on his own. In fact, he referred to American eugenics in his 1934 book, _Mein Kampf_.
> 
> In _Mein Kampf_, Hitler declares non-Aryan races such as Jews and gypsies as inferior. He believed Germans should do everything possible, including genocide, to make sure their gene pool stayed pure. And in 1933, the Nazis created the Law for the Prevention of Hereditarily Diseased Offspring which resulted in thousands of forced sterilizations."
> 
> Darwin may as well have been SATAN himself.  What an evil person he was.  He belongs in the lowest of depths.  Did you read his racist The Descent of Man book?  Why do you think people like you believe you came from monkeys and humans started in Africa?  He supported wholeheartedly Eugenics which came from his relative and his theories.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eugenics
> 
> 
> Eugenics is the practice or advocacy of improving the human species by selectively mating people with specific desirable hereditary traits. It aims to reduce
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.history.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It seems your frantic attempt to link Darwin with eugenics was a total bust.
> 
> The hyper-religious often attempt to make such a connection because their anti-science views cause them to attack the science of evolutionary biology at their every opportunity.
> 
> The source of the label ''social Darwinism'' was Herbert Spencer.
> 
> You might attach the notion of eugenics to Hitler who was raised a Catholic and, as you will attempt to rewrite history, we know that Hazi ideology wad deeply rooted in Christianity. Hitler was never excommunicated from the Church, BTW.
Click to expand...


Nah.  Hitler wrote Mein Kampf himself while in prison (for trying to overthrow the German government) and could not help letting his hate hang out.  Do you think he cared?  Yes he cared, but it was what he _believed.  _

Just like your beliefs have led you to no God/gods, new eugenics (new racism - see below), multiverse, and aliens.  How kookie is that?

It was the same with Darwin, but he was able to keep it within in his first book.  Maybe it slipped out a bit with his title, but he could not help himself once he heard "the survival of the fittest."  He embraced it so much that he put in in a later publication of Origin of Species.  He definitely let it hang out in his second book The Descent of Man.

"Nolte: New York Times Normalizes Racist Eugenics Supported by Woke Doctors

'


> Elise Gould, a senior economist at the Economic Policy Institute, disagreed. Teachers not only ensure that children don’t fall further behind in their education, she said, but are also critical to the work force at large.





> When you talk about disproportionate impact and you’re concerned about people getting back into the labor force, many are mothers, and they will have a harder time if their children don’t have a reliable place to go,” she said. “*And if you think generally about people who have jobs where they can’t telework, they are disproportionately Black and brown. They’ll have more of a challenge when child care is an issue.”*


I think what she meant to say was,_ Ve must unfortunately vazzinate ze white people to save ze preferred races!'_









						New York Times Normalizes Racist Eugenics Supported by Woke Doctors
					

New York Times is okay with the openly racist practice of eugenics when it comes to deciding who gets the coronavirus vaccination first.




					www.breitbart.com


----------



## james bond

danielpalos said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Guilty conscience?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What do you mean?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why worry about Immigration instead of the, Grace of God?  We have a McCarthy era phrase in our pledge now.
Click to expand...


While the grace of God, God and country, and so on is behind our country and its foundation, I think it gets lost in the politics.  Usually, it happens when there is some kind of war or problem in another part of the world and immigration rises.


----------



## danielpalos

james bond said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Guilty conscience?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What do you mean?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why worry about Immigration instead of the, Grace of God?  We have a McCarthy era phrase in our pledge now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> While the grace of God, God and country, and so on is behind our country and its foundation, I think it gets lost in the politics.  Usually, it happens when there is some kind of war or problem in another part of the world and immigration rises.
Click to expand...

Our alleged wars on crime, drugs, and terror are not helping.  And, right wingers refuse to establish any confidence in their sincerity in those Big Government nanny-State policies with tax cut economics.


----------



## Quasar44

Blackrook said:


> But belief in these theories are more wishful thinking than reality.
> 
> The concept that there are an infinite number of parallel universes is poppycock. Even if true, there will never be a way to prove it.
> 
> If extra-terrestrial civilizations existed, we'd know it by now. We've been listening for their radio signals for decades and in all that time we've heard squat.
> 
> The reality is that atheist scientists have pushed belief in these notions because they hate Christianity and want to undermine people's faith in religion.



No 
These theories do have very strong science and math


----------



## Uncensored2008

Quasar44 said:


> Blackrook said:
> 
> 
> 
> But belief in these theories are more wishful thinking than reality.
> 
> The concept that there are an infinite number of parallel universes is poppycock. Even if true, there will never be a way to prove it.
> 
> If extra-terrestrial civilizations existed, we'd know it by now. We've been listening for their radio signals for decades and in all that time we've heard squat.
> 
> The reality is that atheist scientists have pushed belief in these notions because they hate Christianity and want to undermine people's faith in religion.
> 
> 
> 
> You do realize there is very very strong math and quantum physics behind these theories !!
> Are they true in a math sense - yes
> Are they true in reality - I have no idea
Click to expand...


Well, not so much.

The ideas have many equations to explain them, but someone getting fucked up on sensimilla and babbling vs. someone fucked up and writing equations isn't really that big of a gap.  A fantasy expressed mathematically is still a fantasy,


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Uncensored2008 said:


> A fantasy expressed mathematically is still a fantasy


If the universe has shown us anything, it's that something that can happen once will happen many, many times in our universe. Found a unique, new type of star?  Well you, expect us to find many others just like it, now that we know how to find them.

Abiogenesis happened on our planet?  We can reasonably expect it to happen elsewhere, in our vast universe.


----------



## Quasar44

Uncensored2008 said:


> Quasar44 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blackrook said:
> 
> 
> 
> But belief in these theories are more wishful thinking than reality.
> 
> The concept that there are an infinite number of parallel universes is poppycock. Even if true, there will never be a way to prove it.
> 
> If extra-terrestrial civilizations existed, we'd know it by now. We've been listening for their radio signals for decades and in all that time we've heard squat.
> 
> The reality is that atheist scientists have pushed belief in these notions because they hate Christianity and want to undermine people's faith in religion.
> 
> 
> 
> You do realize there is very very strong math and quantum physics behind these theories !!
> Are they true in a math sense - yes
> Are they true in reality - I have no idea
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, not so much.
> 
> The ideas have many equations to explain them, but someone getting fucked up on sensimilla and babbling vs. someone fucked up and writing equations isn't really that big of a gap.  A fantasy expressed mathematically is still a fantasy,
Click to expand...

I can yell you from experts that there is very valid science and  math


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> OTOH, Darwin's racism led directly to social Darwinism, taking "survival of the fittest" from Herbert Spencer and putting it in his first book, and Hitler using survival of the fittest as his credo. Hitler adopted eugenics in finding ways to kill the Jews. We still have Planned Parenthood to this day in black and poor neighborhoods. What a disgusting, filthy POS Darwin was!!! He may as well have been skinned alive and boiled in oil had people knew.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, so many things wrong with this statement.
> 
> First, Hitler didn't believe in Darwinian evolution.    He didn't believe Germans (Aryans) evolved from lower animals...
> 
> Second, as stated above, German anti-Semitism came from Lutheranism.
> 
> Third, "Survival of the Fittest" is often taken completely out of context.
> 
> Fourth, Planned Parenthood actually opposed abortion in Margaret Sangers day, when Eugenics had more scientific credibility than it does now.
> 
> Of course, we still practice Eugenics.  We abort fetuses with genetic deformities, and we genetically screen potential parents for a whole array of diseases such as Cystic Fibrosis and Tay-Sachs syndrome.  Science is a tool, and like any tool, it can be misused or misapplied.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're just wrong and hypocritical.  I just exposed you and atheists.  Look at you and your defending racism.  Just face it that you bow down and kiss the feet of a racist mass murderer like Darwin and his racist family.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Darwin was a mass murderer? That’s news I was not aware of. I would be curious to see some facts about that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "*Adolf Hitler and Eugenics*
> As horrific as forced sterilization in America was, nothing compared to Adolf Hitler’s eugenic experiments leading up to and during World War II. And Hitler didn’t come up with the concept of a superior Aryan race all on his own. In fact, he referred to American eugenics in his 1934 book, _Mein Kampf_.
> 
> In _Mein Kampf_, Hitler declares non-Aryan races such as Jews and gypsies as inferior. He believed Germans should do everything possible, including genocide, to make sure their gene pool stayed pure. And in 1933, the Nazis created the Law for the Prevention of Hereditarily Diseased Offspring which resulted in thousands of forced sterilizations."
> 
> Darwin may as well have been SATAN himself.  What an evil person he was.  He belongs in the lowest of depths.  Did you read his racist The Descent of Man book?  Why do you think people like you believe you came from monkeys and humans started in Africa?  He supported wholeheartedly Eugenics which came from his relative and his theories.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eugenics
> 
> 
> Eugenics is the practice or advocacy of improving the human species by selectively mating people with specific desirable hereditary traits. It aims to reduce
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.history.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It seems your frantic attempt to link Darwin with eugenics was a total bust.
> 
> The hyper-religious often attempt to make such a connection because their anti-science views cause them to attack the science of evolutionary biology at their every opportunity.
> 
> The source of the label ''social Darwinism'' was Herbert Spencer.
> 
> You might attach the notion of eugenics to Hitler who was raised a Catholic and, as you will attempt to rewrite history, we know that Hazi ideology wad deeply rooted in Christianity. Hitler was never excommunicated from the Church, BTW.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nah.  Hitler wrote Mein Kampf himself while in prison (for trying to overthrow the German government) and could not help letting his hate hang out.  Do you think he cared?  Yes he cared, but it was what he _believed.  _
> 
> Just like your beliefs have led you to no God/gods, new eugenics (new racism - see below), multiverse, and aliens.  How kookie is that?
> 
> It was the same with Darwin, but he was able to keep it within in his first book.  Maybe it slipped out a bit with his title, but he could not help himself once he heard "the survival of the fittest."  He embraced it so much that he put in in a later publication of Origin of Species.  He definitely let it hang out in his second book The Descent of Man.
> 
> "Nolte: New York Times Normalizes Racist Eugenics Supported by Woke Doctors
> 
> '
> 
> 
> 
> Elise Gould, a senior economist at the Economic Policy Institute, disagreed. Teachers not only ensure that children don’t fall further behind in their education, she said, but are also critical to the work force at large.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When you talk about disproportionate impact and you’re concerned about people getting back into the labor force, many are mothers, and they will have a harder time if their children don’t have a reliable place to go,” she said. “*And if you think generally about people who have jobs where they can’t telework, they are disproportionately Black and brown. They’ll have more of a challenge when child care is an issue.”*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think what she meant to say was,_ Ve must unfortunately vazzinate ze white people to save ze preferred races!'_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> New York Times Normalizes Racist Eugenics Supported by Woke Doctors
> 
> 
> New York Times is okay with the openly racist practice of eugenics when it comes to deciding who gets the coronavirus vaccination first.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.breitbart.com
Click to expand...

I know you understand that nothing in your rant addressed what I wrote so what was the point?

Yes, Hitler was raised a Catholic, Nazi ideology had roots in Catholicism and the Church never excommunicated Hitler. You may find the above uncomfortable but the historical record remains in spite of your hurt feelings.

Your need to link Charles Darwin with a phrase falsely attributed to him, “survival of the fittest”, is a tactic fairly common to the fundamentalist ministries. They are fine with perpetuating a fraud when it serves their agenda. That agenda is fraud and misrepresentation but let’s not attribute truth and integrity to the hyper-religious.


----------



## james bond

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Abiogenesis happened on our planet? We can reasonably expect it to happen elsewhere, in our vast universe.



Haha.  You believe in evolution mythology.  Grow a pair.


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> I know you understand that nothing in your rant addressed what I wrote so what was the point?


Because what you write isn't food.  It's not nourishing.  It's what comes out the other end .



Hollie said:


> Yes, Hitler was raised a Catholic, Nazi ideology had roots in Catholicism and the Church never excommunicated Hitler. You may find the above uncomfortable but the historical record remains in spite of your hurt feelings.



Yes, Hitler was raised a Catholic but he repudiated it as explained by his own fellow Nazis.  For example, Joseph Goebbels wrote "He hates Christianity, because it has crippled all that is noble in humanity."

Hitler's confidant, personal architect, and Minister of Armaments Albert Speer wrote: "Amid his political associates in Berlin, Hitler made harsh pronouncements against the church", yet "he conceived of the church as an instrument that could be useful to him".









						Religious views of Adolf Hitler - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org
				




You just need to face the facts.  Eugenics and Aryan Supremacism changed Hitler.  I think Goebbels' quotes tell _your_ story of evolution.








Hollie said:


> Your need to link Charles Darwin with a phrase falsely attributed to him, “survival of the fittest”, is a tactic fairly common to the fundamentalist ministries. They are fine with perpetuating a fraud when it serves their agenda. That agenda is fraud and misrepresentation but let’s not attribute truth and integrity to the hyper-religious.



The other point is you can't read and comprehend what I write correctly because of your delusions .  Darwin put "survival of the fittest" in his Origin of Species later publications.


----------



## danielpalos

Uncensored2008 said:


> Quasar44 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blackrook said:
> 
> 
> 
> But belief in these theories are more wishful thinking than reality.
> 
> The concept that there are an infinite number of parallel universes is poppycock. Even if true, there will never be a way to prove it.
> 
> If extra-terrestrial civilizations existed, we'd know it by now. We've been listening for their radio signals for decades and in all that time we've heard squat.
> 
> The reality is that atheist scientists have pushed belief in these notions because they hate Christianity and want to undermine people's faith in religion.
> 
> 
> 
> You do realize there is very very strong math and quantum physics behind these theories !!
> Are they true in a math sense - yes
> Are they true in reality - I have no idea
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, not so much.
> 
> The ideas have many equations to explain them, but someone getting fucked up on sensimilla and babbling vs. someone fucked up and writing equations isn't really that big of a gap.  A fantasy expressed mathematically is still a fantasy,
Click to expand...

What about getting stoned and working with imaginary numbers?


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know you understand that nothing in your rant addressed what I wrote so what was the point?
> 
> 
> 
> Because what you write isn't food.  It's not nourishing.  It's what comes out the other end .
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, Hitler was raised a Catholic, Nazi ideology had roots in Catholicism and the Church never excommunicated Hitler. You may find the above uncomfortable but the historical record remains in spite of your hurt feelings.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, Hitler was raised a Catholic but he repudiated it as explained by his own fellow Nazis.  For example, Joseph Goebbels wrote "He hates Christianity, because it has crippled all that is noble in humanity."
> 
> Hitler's confidant, personal architect, and Minister of Armaments Albert Speer wrote: "Amid his political associates in Berlin, Hitler made harsh pronouncements against the church", yet "he conceived of the church as an instrument that could be useful to him".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Religious views of Adolf Hitler - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You just need to face the facts.  Eugenics and Aryan Supremacism changed Hitler.  I think Goebbels' quotes tell _your_ story of evolution.
> 
> View attachment 431510
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your need to link Charles Darwin with a phrase falsely attributed to him, “survival of the fittest”, is a tactic fairly common to the fundamentalist ministries. They are fine with perpetuating a fraud when it serves their agenda. That agenda is fraud and misrepresentation but let’s not attribute truth and integrity to the hyper-religious.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The other point is you can't read and comprehend what I write correctly because of your delusions .  Darwin put "survival of the fittest" in his Origin of Species later publications.
> 
> View attachment 431515
Click to expand...

Well, yes, your childish attempts at insult are a well worn tactic. I’m just surprised you think such tactics in any way support an argument.

While you claim Hitler “repudiated” Christianity, we also have:
“Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord.

_Adolf Hitler_



“I am now as before a Catholic and will always remain )

_Adolph Hitler_



“I am personally convinced of the great power and deep significance of Christianity, and I won't allow any other religion to be promoted.

_Adolf Hitler_


Your frantic attempts to link Charles Darwin with a phrase coined by someone else (Spencer), is standard fare for the hyper-religious. Spencer read read the works of Thomas Malthus who wrote about conditions in the London slums which is where Spencer got "survival of the fittest". Darwin knew of Jean Lamarck and his work connected to sociology and the theory of wants and needs by the desperately poor.

Rather than mindlessly copying slogans from ID’iot creation ministries, you might want to actually learn about the sciences you are so quick to try and denigrate.


----------



## Uncensored2008

danielpalos said:


> What about getting stoned and working with imaginary numbers?



Your entire life is drug induced delusions.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> A fantasy expressed mathematically is still a fantasy
> 
> 
> 
> If the universe has shown us anything, it's that something that can happen once will happen many, many times in our universe. Found a unique, new type of star?  Well you, expect us to find many others just like it, now that we know how to find them.
> 
> Abiogenesis happened on our planet?  We can reasonably expect it to happen elsewhere, in our vast universe.
Click to expand...


Yet "parallel universes" is nothing more than a fantasy. String theory cannot substantiate or even support it. It is little more than frat boys speculating.


----------



## danielpalos

Uncensored2008 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> What about getting stoned and working with imaginary numbers?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your entire life is drug induced delusions.
Click to expand...

even with imaginary numbers?


----------



## ReinyDays

danielpalos said:


> even with imaginary numbers?



Treat them as vectors ... easy peasy ...


----------



## james bond

ReinyDays said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> even with imaginary numbers?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Treat them as vectors ... easy peasy ...
Click to expand...


I've never heard that.  What part is imaginary?


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> I know you understand that nothing in your rant addressed what I wrote so what was the point?
> 
> Yes, Hitler was raised a Catholic, Nazi ideology had roots in Catholicism and the Church never excommunicated Hitler. You may find the above uncomfortable but the historical record remains in spite of your hurt feelings.
> 
> Your need to link Charles Darwin with a phrase falsely attributed to him, “survival of the fittest”, is a tactic fairly common to the fundamentalist ministries. They are fine with perpetuating a fraud when it serves their agenda. That agenda is fraud and misrepresentation but let’s not attribute truth and integrity to the hyper-religious.



Hitler -----> hell
Darwin ---> hell

Any questions?


----------



## ReinyDays

james bond said:


> ReinyDays said:
> 
> 
> 
> Treat them as vectors ... easy peasy ...
> 
> 
> 
> I've never heard that.  What part is imaginary?
Click to expand...


Using the complex form *a + bi* gives us a unit vector approach ... *a* times the real unit vector plus *b* times the imaginary unit vector ... then add and multiply as usual ... with both closure and unique identities we can form our one-to-one correspondence and map our complex values straight into this vector form ... or any vector form for that matter ... pick whichever one is easiest to compute with ...

I've never had to deal with these values ... my understanding is that they crop up in electronics here and there ... [shrugs shoulders] ... I'm an uneducated construction laborer, what do you expect of me? ...

ETA:  Scalar multiplication, my bad ...


----------



## james bond

ReinyDays said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ReinyDays said:
> 
> 
> 
> Treat them as vectors ... easy peasy ...
> 
> 
> 
> I've never heard that.  What part is imaginary?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Using the complex form *a + bi* gives us a unit vector approach ... *a* times the real unit vector plus *b* times the imaginary unit vector ... then add and multiply as usual ... with both closure and unique identities we can form our one-to-one correspondence and map our complex values straight into this vector form ... or any vector form for that matter ... pick whichever one is easiest to compute with ...
> 
> I've never had to deal with these values ... my understanding is that they crop up in electronics here and there ... [shrugs shoulders] ... I'm an uneducated construction laborer, what do you expect of me? ...
Click to expand...


I think you need more than two dimensions in your example, no? 

Usually, it is expressed as sine waves as we have positive parts of a wave going up to its crest and negative parts going down to its trough.


----------



## danielpalos

ReinyDays said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ReinyDays said:
> 
> 
> 
> Treat them as vectors ... easy peasy ...
> 
> 
> 
> I've never heard that.  What part is imaginary?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Using the complex form *a + bi* gives us a unit vector approach ... *a* times the real unit vector plus *b* times the imaginary unit vector ... then add and multiply as usual ... with both closure and unique identities we can form our one-to-one correspondence and map our complex values straight into this vector form ... or any vector form for that matter ... pick whichever one is easiest to compute with ...
> 
> I've never had to deal with these values ... my understanding is that they crop up in electronics here and there ... [shrugs shoulders] ... I'm an uneducated construction laborer, what do you expect of me? ...
> 
> ETA:  Scalar multiplication, my bad ...
Click to expand...

We need an industrial strength version of SimCity where we can plug in all the factors we can find.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Blackrook said:


> But belief in these theories are more wishful thinking than reality.
> 
> The concept that there are an infinite number of parallel universes is poppycock. Even if true, there will never be a way to prove it.
> 
> If extra-terrestrial civilizations existed, we'd know it by now. We've been listening for their radio signals for decades and in all that time we've heard squat.
> 
> The reality is that atheist scientists have pushed belief in these notions because they hate Christianity and want to undermine people's faith in religion.


Still waiting for you to show us how this would damage Christianity. But being who you are, you wont be coming back to your own thread to face the music.


----------



## ReinyDays

james bond said:


> I think you need more than two dimensions in your example, no?
> Usually, it is expressed as sine waves as we have positive parts of a wave going up to its crest and negative parts going down to its trough.



This is just one complex dimension ... being represented as two real dimensions ... we can do that in math ... 
The imaginary unit is _defined_ as the square root of -1 ... and that is how it's usually expressed ...


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know you understand that nothing in your rant addressed what I wrote so what was the point?
> 
> Yes, Hitler was raised a Catholic, Nazi ideology had roots in Catholicism and the Church never excommunicated Hitler. You may find the above uncomfortable but the historical record remains in spite of your hurt feelings.
> 
> Your need to link Charles Darwin with a phrase falsely attributed to him, “survival of the fittest”, is a tactic fairly common to the fundamentalist ministries. They are fine with perpetuating a fraud when it serves their agenda. That agenda is fraud and misrepresentation but let’s not attribute truth and integrity to the hyper-religious.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hitler -----> hell
> Darwin ---> hell
> 
> Any questions?
Click to expand...

Yes.

Are you a part time comedian?


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know you understand that nothing in your rant addressed what I wrote so what was the point?
> 
> Yes, Hitler was raised a Catholic, Nazi ideology had roots in Catholicism and the Church never excommunicated Hitler. You may find the above uncomfortable but the historical record remains in spite of your hurt feelings.
> 
> Your need to link Charles Darwin with a phrase falsely attributed to him, “survival of the fittest”, is a tactic fairly common to the fundamentalist ministries. They are fine with perpetuating a fraud when it serves their agenda. That agenda is fraud and misrepresentation but let’s not attribute truth and integrity to the hyper-religious.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hitler -----> hell
> Darwin ---> hell
> 
> Any questions?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes.
> 
> Are you a part time comedian?
Click to expand...


I got more.

Jeffrey Dahmer -----> hell (forgot to repent homosexuality)
Anne Frank -----> heaven (too innocent)

Certainly, if Hitler was what you say he was, then he wouldn't have executed Anne Frank.

ETA:  No multiverse and no aliens, too.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know you understand that nothing in your rant addressed what I wrote so what was the point?
> 
> Yes, Hitler was raised a Catholic, Nazi ideology had roots in Catholicism and the Church never excommunicated Hitler. You may find the above uncomfortable but the historical record remains in spite of your hurt feelings.
> 
> Your need to link Charles Darwin with a phrase falsely attributed to him, “survival of the fittest”, is a tactic fairly common to the fundamentalist ministries. They are fine with perpetuating a fraud when it serves their agenda. That agenda is fraud and misrepresentation but let’s not attribute truth and integrity to the hyper-religious.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hitler -----> hell
> Darwin ---> hell
> 
> Any questions?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes.
> 
> Are you a part time comedian?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I got more.
> 
> Jeffrey Dahmer -----> hell (forgot to repent homosexuality)
> Anne Frank -----> heaven (too innocent)
> 
> Certainly, if Hitler was what you say he was, then he wouldn't have executed Anne Frank.
> 
> ETA:  No multiverse and no aliens, too.
Click to expand...

Gross. Your beliefs are so immoral, which makes you immoral.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know you understand that nothing in your rant addressed what I wrote so what was the point?
> 
> Yes, Hitler was raised a Catholic, Nazi ideology had roots in Catholicism and the Church never excommunicated Hitler. You may find the above uncomfortable but the historical record remains in spite of your hurt feelings.
> 
> Your need to link Charles Darwin with a phrase falsely attributed to him, “survival of the fittest”, is a tactic fairly common to the fundamentalist ministries. They are fine with perpetuating a fraud when it serves their agenda. That agenda is fraud and misrepresentation but let’s not attribute truth and integrity to the hyper-religious.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hitler -----> hell
> Darwin ---> hell
> 
> Any questions?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes.
> 
> Are you a part time comedian?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I got more.
> 
> Jeffrey Dahmer -----> hell (forgot to repent homosexuality)
> Anne Frank -----> heaven (too innocent)
> 
> Certainly, if Hitler was what you say he was, then he wouldn't have executed Anne Frank.
> 
> ETA:  No multiverse and no aliens, too.
Click to expand...

That's nice that you have assigned yourself as your gods little helper deciding about who goes to your heavens and hells. It seems you have decided to partner with your gods and take on a more active roll in people's lives. Such are the cult fantasies of the hyper-religious.


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know you understand that nothing in your rant addressed what I wrote so what was the point?
> 
> Yes, Hitler was raised a Catholic, Nazi ideology had roots in Catholicism and the Church never excommunicated Hitler. You may find the above uncomfortable but the historical record remains in spite of your hurt feelings.
> 
> Your need to link Charles Darwin with a phrase falsely attributed to him, “survival of the fittest”, is a tactic fairly common to the fundamentalist ministries. They are fine with perpetuating a fraud when it serves their agenda. That agenda is fraud and misrepresentation but let’s not attribute truth and integrity to the hyper-religious.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hitler -----> hell
> Darwin ---> hell
> 
> Any questions?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes.
> 
> Are you a part time comedian?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I got more.
> 
> Jeffrey Dahmer -----> hell (forgot to repent homosexuality)
> Anne Frank -----> heaven (too innocent)
> 
> Certainly, if Hitler was what you say he was, then he wouldn't have executed Anne Frank.
> 
> ETA:  No multiverse and no aliens, too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's nice that you have assigned yourself as your gods little helper deciding about who goes to your heavens and hells. It seems you have decided to partner with your gods and take on a more active roll in people's lives. Such are the cult fantasies of the hyper-religious.
Click to expand...


It's just an educated guess.  Personal opinion.

How am I suppose to know for sure?  I read another article on Dahmer today -- Jeffrey Dahmer's Life (and Death) in Prison.

I'm not hyper religious.  I participate in a wide array of topics here.  What about you?


----------



## james bond

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know you understand that nothing in your rant addressed what I wrote so what was the point?
> 
> Yes, Hitler was raised a Catholic, Nazi ideology had roots in Catholicism and the Church never excommunicated Hitler. You may find the above uncomfortable but the historical record remains in spite of your hurt feelings.
> 
> Your need to link Charles Darwin with a phrase falsely attributed to him, “survival of the fittest”, is a tactic fairly common to the fundamentalist ministries. They are fine with perpetuating a fraud when it serves their agenda. That agenda is fraud and misrepresentation but let’s not attribute truth and integrity to the hyper-religious.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hitler -----> hell
> Darwin ---> hell
> 
> Any questions?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes.
> 
> Are you a part time comedian?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I got more.
> 
> Jeffrey Dahmer -----> hell (forgot to repent homosexuality)
> Anne Frank -----> heaven (too innocent)
> 
> Certainly, if Hitler was what you say he was, then he wouldn't have executed Anne Frank.
> 
> ETA:  No multiverse and no aliens, too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Gross. Your beliefs are so immoral, which makes you immoral.
Click to expand...


Just because I thought Hitler would not have executed Anne Frank if Hollie was right?

What comment of mine crawled up your bunghole?


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know you understand that nothing in your rant addressed what I wrote so what was the point?
> 
> Yes, Hitler was raised a Catholic, Nazi ideology had roots in Catholicism and the Church never excommunicated Hitler. You may find the above uncomfortable but the historical record remains in spite of your hurt feelings.
> 
> Your need to link Charles Darwin with a phrase falsely attributed to him, “survival of the fittest”, is a tactic fairly common to the fundamentalist ministries. They are fine with perpetuating a fraud when it serves their agenda. That agenda is fraud and misrepresentation but let’s not attribute truth and integrity to the hyper-religious.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hitler -----> hell
> Darwin ---> hell
> 
> Any questions?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes.
> 
> Are you a part time comedian?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I got more.
> 
> Jeffrey Dahmer -----> hell (forgot to repent homosexuality)
> Anne Frank -----> heaven (too innocent)
> 
> Certainly, if Hitler was what you say he was, then he wouldn't have executed Anne Frank.
> 
> ETA:  No multiverse and no aliens, too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's nice that you have assigned yourself as your gods little helper deciding about who goes to your heavens and hells. It seems you have decided to partner with your gods and take on a more active roll in people's lives. Such are the cult fantasies of the hyper-religious.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's just an educated guess.  Personal opinion.
> 
> How am I suppose to know for sure?  I read another article on Dahmer today -- Jeffrey Dahmer's Life (and Death) in Prison.
> 
> I'm not hyper religious.  I participate in a wide array of topics here.  What about you?
Click to expand...

You should try out for the hyper-religious swim team - backstroke competition.

It's odd your waffling now about ''just an educated guess'' when your earlier comments were very specific and emphatic about who you were condemning to hell on behalf of your gods. 

Not sure why it is but the hyper-religious seem to be the angriest, most hateful people on the planet. Why you?


----------



## danielpalos

james bond said:


> No multiverse and no aliens, too.


You don't know that.  Where there is one universe, there could be more.  And, there could be at least, one intelligent life form in every galaxy.  Perhaps there are more civilizations closer to each other in a galaxy, far, far away.


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know you understand that nothing in your rant addressed what I wrote so what was the point?
> 
> Yes, Hitler was raised a Catholic, Nazi ideology had roots in Catholicism and the Church never excommunicated Hitler. You may find the above uncomfortable but the historical record remains in spite of your hurt feelings.
> 
> Your need to link Charles Darwin with a phrase falsely attributed to him, “survival of the fittest”, is a tactic fairly common to the fundamentalist ministries. They are fine with perpetuating a fraud when it serves their agenda. That agenda is fraud and misrepresentation but let’s not attribute truth and integrity to the hyper-religious.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hitler -----> hell
> Darwin ---> hell
> 
> Any questions?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes.
> 
> Are you a part time comedian?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I got more.
> 
> Jeffrey Dahmer -----> hell (forgot to repent homosexuality)
> Anne Frank -----> heaven (too innocent)
> 
> Certainly, if Hitler was what you say he was, then he wouldn't have executed Anne Frank.
> 
> ETA:  No multiverse and no aliens, too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's nice that you have assigned yourself as your gods little helper deciding about who goes to your heavens and hells. It seems you have decided to partner with your gods and take on a more active roll in people's lives. Such are the cult fantasies of the hyper-religious.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's just an educated guess.  Personal opinion.
> 
> How am I suppose to know for sure?  I read another article on Dahmer today -- Jeffrey Dahmer's Life (and Death) in Prison.
> 
> I'm not hyper religious.  I participate in a wide array of topics here.  What about you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You should try out for the hyper-religious swim team - backstroke competition.
> 
> It's odd your waffling now about ''just an educated guess'' when your earlier comments were very specific and emphatic about who you were condemning to hell on behalf of your gods.
> 
> Not sure why it is but the hyper-religious seem to be the angriest, most hateful people on the planet. Why you?
Click to expand...


You're not answering my questions while I answered most, if not all of yours.  It makes me feel you are lying and hiding things.

If Hitler was INFLUENCED by Catholicism more than Darwin's "survival of the fittest" and eugenics, then he would not have killed all those Jews and others because it is an objective commandment of morality between humans by God.  Isn't it more likely he was influenced by eugenics and was drooling over it?







As for the hell/heaven, it's just my opinion.  Am I not allowed to have opinions here?  We have strayed far, far, far from science discussion here because you are too much influenced by the atheist religion.


----------



## james bond

danielpalos said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> No multiverse and no aliens, too.
> 
> 
> 
> You don't know that.  Where there is one universe, there could be more.  And, there could be at least, one intelligent life form in every galaxy.  Perhaps there are more civilizations closer to each other in a galaxy, far, far away.
Click to expand...


Yes, I do from science.  Multiverse is based on scientific atheism not being able to answer what was there BEFORE the big bang.  They think because of the light double-slit experiment and Schrodinger's cat that multiverse has to exist.  Nothing of the kind; it's just the future and once we observe, then it is set.  Before that, there are many possibilities.

There are no intelligent aliens as we would've been contacted or have found them already.


----------



## danielpalos

james bond said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> No multiverse and no aliens, too.
> 
> 
> 
> You don't know that.  Where there is one universe, there could be more.  And, there could be at least, one intelligent life form in every galaxy.  Perhaps there are more civilizations closer to each other in a galaxy, far, far away.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, I do from science.  Multiverse is based on scientific atheism not being able to answer what was there BEFORE the big bang.  They think because of the light double-slit experiment and Schrodinger's cat that multiverse has to exist.  Nothing of the kind; it's just the future and once we observe, then it is set.  Before that, there are many possibilities.
> 
> There are no intelligent aliens as we would've been contacted or have found them already.
Click to expand...

You have no science for your point of view.  A Universe based on non-scientific theism not being able to answer where God came from before He allegedly created the Universe. 

You claim there are no intelligent aliens just like atheists can claim there is no god or He would have made contact already.  And, all myths are based on creationism.


----------



## james bond

danielpalos said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> No multiverse and no aliens, too.
> 
> 
> 
> You don't know that.  Where there is one universe, there could be more.  And, there could be at least, one intelligent life form in every galaxy.  Perhaps there are more civilizations closer to each other in a galaxy, far, far away.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, I do from science.  Multiverse is based on scientific atheism not being able to answer what was there BEFORE the big bang.  They think because of the light double-slit experiment and Schrodinger's cat that multiverse has to exist.  Nothing of the kind; it's just the future and once we observe, then it is set.  Before that, there are many possibilities.
> 
> There are no intelligent aliens as we would've been contacted or have found them already.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have no science for your point of view.  A Universe based on non-scientific theism not being able to answer where God came from before He allegedly created the Universe.
> 
> You claim there are no intelligent aliens just like atheists can claim there is no god or He would have made contact already.  And, all myths are based on creationism.
Click to expand...


Don't be ridiculous and a stooge.  What evidence do you have?

OTOH, I have provided there are no evidence whatsoever for a multiverse and debunked the multiverse arguments.  Moreover, I have science for no intelligent aliens.  Probably no alien organisms whatsoever.  We've searched the solar system and there have been none (two places left).


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Blackrook said:


> But belief in these theories are more wishful thinking than reality.
> 
> The concept that there are an infinite number of parallel universes is poppycock. Even if true, there will never be a way to prove it.
> 
> If extra-terrestrial civilizations existed, we'd know it by now. We've been listening for their radio signals for decades and in all that time we've heard squat.
> 
> The reality is that atheist scientists have pushed belief in these notions because they hate Christianity and want to undermine people's faith in religion.


This is just you accidentally telling on yourself again. Really, the reason you deny and mock science is because you see it as adversarial to your iron aged faith.


----------



## danielpalos

james bond said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> No multiverse and no aliens, too.
> 
> 
> 
> You don't know that.  Where there is one universe, there could be more.  And, there could be at least, one intelligent life form in every galaxy.  Perhaps there are more civilizations closer to each other in a galaxy, far, far away.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, I do from science.  Multiverse is based on scientific atheism not being able to answer what was there BEFORE the big bang.  They think because of the light double-slit experiment and Schrodinger's cat that multiverse has to exist.  Nothing of the kind; it's just the future and once we observe, then it is set.  Before that, there are many possibilities.
> 
> There are no intelligent aliens as we would've been contacted or have found them already.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have no science for your point of view.  A Universe based on non-scientific theism not being able to answer where God came from before He allegedly created the Universe.
> 
> You claim there are no intelligent aliens just like atheists can claim there is no god or He would have made contact already.  And, all myths are based on creationism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don't be ridiculous and a stooge.  What evidence do you have?
> 
> OTOH, I have provided there are no evidence whatsoever for a multiverse and debunked the multiverse arguments.  Moreover, I have science for no intelligent aliens.  Probably no alien organisms whatsoever.  We've searched the solar system and there have been none (two places left).
Click to expand...

The same evidence you have provided.  Just your opinion.  If one universe exists how can you claim there are no others?  And, no proof of other intelligent life in our solar system means nothing when there are billions of galaxies not just stars.  The law of large numbers applies to back up my opinion. 

And, you conveniently ignored that all myths are based on creationism.


----------



## james bond

danielpalos said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> No multiverse and no aliens, too.
> 
> 
> 
> You don't know that.  Where there is one universe, there could be more.  And, there could be at least, one intelligent life form in every galaxy.  Perhaps there are more civilizations closer to each other in a galaxy, far, far away.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, I do from science.  Multiverse is based on scientific atheism not being able to answer what was there BEFORE the big bang.  They think because of the light double-slit experiment and Schrodinger's cat that multiverse has to exist.  Nothing of the kind; it's just the future and once we observe, then it is set.  Before that, there are many possibilities.
> 
> There are no intelligent aliens as we would've been contacted or have found them already.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have no science for your point of view.  A Universe based on non-scientific theism not being able to answer where God came from before He allegedly created the Universe.
> 
> You claim there are no intelligent aliens just like atheists can claim there is no god or He would have made contact already.  And, all myths are based on creationism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don't be ridiculous and a stooge.  What evidence do you have?
> 
> OTOH, I have provided there are no evidence whatsoever for a multiverse and debunked the multiverse arguments.  Moreover, I have science for no intelligent aliens.  Probably no alien organisms whatsoever.  We've searched the solar system and there have been none (two places left).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The same evidence you have provided.  Just your opinion.  If one universe exists how can you claim there are no others?  And, no proof of other intelligent life in our solar system means nothing when there are billions of galaxies not just stars.  The law of large numbers applies to back up my opinion.
> 
> And, you conveniently ignored that all myths are based on creationism.
Click to expand...


Just as I thought.  You are a stooge and have no evidence .

OTOH, I debunked you and punked you in my last post.


----------



## danielpalos

You need valid arguments not just being full of fallacy (of argumentum ad hominem).


----------



## james bond

danielpalos said:


> You need valid arguments not just being full of fallacy (of argumentum ad hominem).



I asked you a couple of times for your evidence and you've been a stooge.  I can only wait so long.

Basically, I've already stated that only life begets life and we have the fine tuning facts.  It shows all we have is what God created and natural selection developed.  ToE is wrong.  Maybe there could be panspermia, but it's doubtful life will survive in the rigors of space being exposed to the solar wind.

The facts are with me.  There have been no aliens (in 4.54 billion of years or even 13.7 billion years).  Just what God said he created six thousand or so years ago.  Dr. Louis Pasteur's beautiful swan neck flask experiment.  Chicken before the egg.  Atheist scientists dying without ever finding aliens or abiogenesis (spontaneous generation).


----------



## danielpalos

james bond said:


> Basically, I've already stated that only life begets life and we have the fine tuning facts.


The Miller-Urey experiment proved spontaneous evolution regarding amino acids in a relatively short time; the building blocks of life. 

And, your opinion is merely special pleading.  If God is alive, who or what begat Him?


----------



## james bond

danielpalos said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Basically, I've already stated that only life begets life and we have the fine tuning facts.
> 
> 
> 
> The Miller-Urey experiment proved spontaneous evolution regarding amino acids in a relatively short time; the building blocks of life.
> 
> And, your opinion is merely special pleading.  If God is alive, who or what begat Him?
Click to expand...


Your answer shows you don't know about the building blocks of life.  If you can get a simple cell from random amino acids which are found everywhere, then you will be world famous.


----------



## danielpalos

james bond said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Basically, I've already stated that only life begets life and we have the fine tuning facts.
> 
> 
> 
> The Miller-Urey experiment proved spontaneous evolution regarding amino acids in a relatively short time; the building blocks of life.
> 
> And, your opinion is merely special pleading.  If God is alive, who or what begat Him?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your answer shows you don't know about the building blocks of life.  If you can get a simple cell from random amino acids which are found everywhere, then you will be world famous.
Click to expand...

How did they evolve in an experiment outside of natural nature?


----------



## james bond

danielpalos said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Basically, I've already stated that only life begets life and we have the fine tuning facts.
> 
> 
> 
> The Miller-Urey experiment proved spontaneous evolution regarding amino acids in a relatively short time; the building blocks of life.
> 
> And, your opinion is merely special pleading.  If God is alive, who or what begat Him?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your answer shows you don't know about the building blocks of life.  If you can get a simple cell from random amino acids which are found everywhere, then you will be world famous.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How did they evolve in an experiment outside of natural nature?
Click to expand...


The answer to the building blocks of life are _proteins_.  You've never heard of that in elementary health class?  Proteins are made up of amino acids, but one can't just create proteins from amino acids outside the cell due to chirality.  Thus, one needs to start with a living cell to produce more.

Outside of natural nature, one needs God to create living organisms first and God did that by creating adult living organisms.  The only infant was Jesus.

The atheists claim the egg came first, but that is impossible, but the atheists keep believing in the fairy tale of evolution and think that is possible.  Abiogenesis (spontaneous generation) is possible.  Aliens are possible.  Atheists and their scientists believe in fairy tales.

So, if you want to show God isn't necessary, then all one has to do is create a protein from amino acids.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Basically, I've already stated that only life begets life and we have the fine tuning facts.
> 
> 
> 
> The Miller-Urey experiment proved spontaneous evolution regarding amino acids in a relatively short time; the building blocks of life.
> 
> And, your opinion is merely special pleading.  If God is alive, who or what begat Him?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your answer shows you don't know about the building blocks of life.  If you can get a simple cell from random amino acids which are found everywhere, then you will be world famous.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How did they evolve in an experiment outside of natural nature?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The answer to the building blocks of life are _proteins_.  You've never heard of that in elementary health class?  Proteins are made up of amino acids, but one can't just create proteins from amino acids outside the cell due to chirality.  Thus, one needs to start with a living cell to produce more.
> 
> Outside of natural nature, one needs God to create living organisms first and God did that by creating adult living organisms.  The only infant was Jesus.
> 
> The atheists claim the egg came first, but that is impossible, but the atheists keep believing in the fairy tale of evolution and think that is possible.  Abiogenesis (spontaneous generation) is possible.  Aliens are possible.  Atheists and their scientists believe in fairy tales.
> 
> So, if you want to show God isn't necessary, then all one has to do is create a protein from amino acids.
Click to expand...

What is outside of “natural nature”? Is there a supernatural nature?

People who define supernatural gods as the magical inventors of nature will overwhelmingly default to the gods of their familial / geographic location so we’re left to ask if a super consortium, a unionized collection of gods are therefore responsible for nature. That would tend to dismiss the very definition of nature or “natural” so we’re left to question the very definition of “natural”. One version of religioners; ID’iot creationers claim magical realms where persons are made from ribs, snakes converse and plants grow supernaturally, (without sunlight), magically appeared 6,000 years ago. ID’iot creationers claim the magic came first (the chicken or the egg thingy), but that version of supernaturalism and magic conflicts with other versions. Why is your version wrong when other versions are “more better”?


----------



## danielpalos

james bond said:


> The answer to the building blocks of life are _proteins_. You've never heard of that in elementary health class? Proteins are made up of amino acids, but one can't just create proteins from amino acids outside the cell due to chirality. Thus, one needs to start with a living cell to produce more.


The point was about abiogenesis.  Millions or billions of years of evolution does the rest.


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Basically, I've already stated that only life begets life and we have the fine tuning facts.
> 
> 
> 
> The Miller-Urey experiment proved spontaneous evolution regarding amino acids in a relatively short time; the building blocks of life.
> 
> And, your opinion is merely special pleading.  If God is alive, who or what begat Him?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your answer shows you don't know about the building blocks of life.  If you can get a simple cell from random amino acids which are found everywhere, then you will be world famous.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How did they evolve in an experiment outside of natural nature?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The answer to the building blocks of life are _proteins_.  You've never heard of that in elementary health class?  Proteins are made up of amino acids, but one can't just create proteins from amino acids outside the cell due to chirality.  Thus, one needs to start with a living cell to produce more.
> 
> Outside of natural nature, one needs God to create living organisms first and God did that by creating adult living organisms.  The only infant was Jesus.
> 
> The atheists claim the egg came first, but that is impossible, but the atheists keep believing in the fairy tale of evolution and think that is possible.  Abiogenesis (spontaneous generation) is possible.  Aliens are possible.  Atheists and their scientists believe in fairy tales.
> 
> So, if you want to show God isn't necessary, then all one has to do is create a protein from amino acids.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What is outside of “natural nature”? Is there a supernatural nature?
> 
> People who define supernatural gods as the magical inventors of nature will overwhelmingly default to the gods of their familial / geographic location so we’re left to ask if a super consortium, a unionized collection of gods are therefore responsible for nature. That would tend to dismiss the very definition of nature or “natural” so we’re left to question the very definition of “natural”. One version of religioners; ID’iot creationers claim magical realms where persons are made from ribs, snakes converse and plants grow supernaturally, (without sunlight), magically appeared 6,000 years ago. ID’iot creationers claim the magic came first (the chicken or the egg thingy), but that version of supernaturalism and magic conflicts with other versions. Why is your version wrong when other versions are “more better”?
Click to expand...


Ask the other guy


----------



## james bond

danielpalos said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> The answer to the building blocks of life are _proteins_. You've never heard of that in elementary health class? Proteins are made up of amino acids, but one can't just create proteins from amino acids outside the cell due to chirality. Thus, one needs to start with a living cell to produce more.
> 
> 
> 
> The point was about abiogenesis.  Millions or billions of years of evolution does the rest.
Click to expand...


Abiogenesis is the same as spontaneous generation.  A fairy tale by a modern name.  The reality is no abiogenesis happens and no aliens.


----------



## danielpalos

james bond said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> The answer to the building blocks of life are _proteins_. You've never heard of that in elementary health class? Proteins are made up of amino acids, but one can't just create proteins from amino acids outside the cell due to chirality. Thus, one needs to start with a living cell to produce more.
> 
> 
> 
> The point was about abiogenesis.  Millions or billions of years of evolution does the rest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Abiogenesis is the same as spontaneous generation.  A fairy tale by a modern name.  The reality is no abiogenesis happens and no aliens.
Click to expand...

The Miller-Urey experiment proved you wrong.


----------



## james bond

danielpalos said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> The answer to the building blocks of life are _proteins_. You've never heard of that in elementary health class? Proteins are made up of amino acids, but one can't just create proteins from amino acids outside the cell due to chirality. Thus, one needs to start with a living cell to produce more.
> 
> 
> 
> The point was about abiogenesis.  Millions or billions of years of evolution does the rest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Abiogenesis is the same as spontaneous generation.  A fairy tale by a modern name.  The reality is no abiogenesis happens and no aliens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Miller-Urey experiment proved you wrong.
Click to expand...


You are brain dead.  Urey-Miller failed.  Do you know why?

No, see my first sentence.


----------



## danielpalos

james bond said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> The answer to the building blocks of life are _proteins_. You've never heard of that in elementary health class? Proteins are made up of amino acids, but one can't just create proteins from amino acids outside the cell due to chirality. Thus, one needs to start with a living cell to produce more.
> 
> 
> 
> The point was about abiogenesis.  Millions or billions of years of evolution does the rest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Abiogenesis is the same as spontaneous generation.  A fairy tale by a modern name.  The reality is no abiogenesis happens and no aliens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Miller-Urey experiment proved you wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are brain dead.  Urey-Miller failed.  Do you know why?
> 
> No, see my first sentence.
Click to expand...

You are one of the Reasons we are stuck in Nexus Six with Zardoz and the _incorrigibles_.

And, no, the Miller-Urey did not fail; it achieved an objective of discovering a potential possibility frontier regarding abiogenesis.


----------



## danielpalos

What do five or so distinct, Extinction events mean, from a biblical perspective?


----------

