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

[james bond]

 

[ReinyDays]

Cartoon science ...

 

[JoeB131]

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]

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

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]

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

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.

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]

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

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.

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 ...

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

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.

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 ...

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.

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]

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

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.

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 ...

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.

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

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.

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 ...

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.

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.

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.

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]

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

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.

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 ...

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.

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.

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.

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]

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 ...

Yeah, yeah No need for any toy machine guns here. My house coyote controls the varmints just fine: