Definitive Proof that GOD Exists?

[JimBowie1958]

The OP is an opinion.

Again, shit stain, you have not proven the OP to be a fallacy, casual or otherwise. You've also not proven that evidence is not subjective. You continue to prove you are an obtuse jackass.

Hey dumbass, read carefully: The OP IS AN OPINION BY YOUR OWN DEFINITION OF EVIDENCE.

You have, by your own evidential standards, made your own assertion impossible to prove. That's a big LOL.

In your biased opinion.

Which isn't worth shit.

 

[newpolitics]

Again, shit stain, you have not proven the OP to be a fallacy, casual or otherwise. You've also not proven that evidence is not subjective. You continue to prove you are an obtuse jackass.

Hey dumbass, read carefully: The OP IS AN OPINION BY YOUR OWN DEFINITION OF EVIDENCE.

You have, by your own evidential standards, made your own assertion impossible to prove. That's a big LOL.

In your biased opinion.

Which isn't worth shit.

The OP is an opinion, based on zero empirical evidence and faulty logic.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Hey dumbass, read carefully: The OP IS AN OPINION BY YOUR OWN DEFINITION OF EVIDENCE.

You have, by your own evidential standards, made your own assertion impossible to prove. That's a big LOL.

In your biased opinion.

Which isn't worth shit.

The OP is an opinion, based on zero empirical evidence and faulty logic.

Empirical evidence is irrelevant to understanding our universe as orderly in the first place. That the behavior of the universe can be accurately described at all in human cognitive terms is axiomatic, an assumption scientists simply start with.

I see less fault to his logic than I do with your unwarranted assertion. At least he is trying to support his assertion with fact and reason.

 

[newpolitics]

Good greif, so now you think the laws of science are absolute? You are the fucking idiot, not Boss. Proof *is* subjective and requires confidence in the scientist and those who peer review his work and there have been multiple failures here as well.

While I agree that science has been the more certain tool of investigation it can be wrong as well and has been time and time again and it has very narrow scope.

But I think it is clear that you are not interested in a discussion of these things, but only in provocation and ridicule. IT was plain Boss has a point and you damn him for even attempting to discuss it.

In short, NP, you are a posturing hypocrite, and a fraud.

First of all, What the hell are the "laws of science?"

Yeah you only said, "The scientific method has been the most successful method at ascertaining truths about reality.' Silly me thinking you were making any reference to the resultant laws of science, lol.

Another semantic dodge from you, no surprise.

Secondly, I didn't say anywhere that these so-called "laws of science" are absolute.

Then how can they be objectively true and not under any subjectivity? Those damned logarithmic charts are VITAL to any experiment, lol

Thirdly, It is only the gullible and faith-filled that claim anything to be absolute.

Unlike your declaration that the scientific method is objective?

roflmao

I still don't know what the "laws of science" are. I can't respond to an incoherent strawman.

I never said the scientific method was objective. I said the scientific method was the best method at ascertaining truths about objective reality.

You need to pay to attention to the words that are written in front of you, and not simply read what you think you want to read so you can argue against something that is easier for you to refute. This is how straw-men are formed, which is all you've been arguing against.

 

[newpolitics]

In your biased opinion.

Which isn't worth shit.

The OP is an opinion, based on zero empirical evidence and faulty logic.

Empirical evidence is irrelevant to understanding our universe as orderly in the first place. That the behavior of the universe can be accurately described at all in human cognitive terms is axiomatic, an assumption scientists simply start with.

I see less fault to his logic than I do with your unwarranted assertion. At least he is trying to support his assertion with fact and reason.

You're right. We have no empirical evidence about what caused the big bang, or if there even needs to be a cause. Therefore, you have no justification for drawing a conclusion either way, including god. Inferring there must be a cause is the composition fallacy: inferring that what is true of the part, is true of the whole. Your second sentence about an axiom makes no sense. The only assumption anyone starts with is that our observations correspond to a consistent reality that is available for investigation.

You see less fault in his logic because you agree with his conclusion. He has no logic and no evidence. By his logic, if I believe I can fly, then that is evidence that I can fly... So, I can fly. Being that this is clearly illogical, so is his argument, which rests merely on human belief. His use of evolution and Occam's Razor are entirely inaccurate and bastardizes those two things.

 

[hobelim]

You're right. We have no empirical evidence about what caused the big bang, or if there even needs to be a cause. Therefore, you have no justification for drawing a conclusion either way, including god. Inferring there must be a cause is the composition fallacy: inferring that what is true of the part, is true of the whole. Your second sentence about an axiom makes no sense. The only assumption anyone starts with is that our observations correspond to a consistent reality that is available for investigation.

You see less fault in his logic because you agree with his conclusion. He has no logic and no evidence. By his logic, if I believe I can fly, then that is evidence that I can fly... So, I can fly. Being that this is clearly illogical, so is his argument, which rests merely on human belief. His use of evolution and Occam's Razor are entirely inaccurate and bastardizes those two things.

Damn you are a patient man.


I find it astonishing that anyone could be persuaded by or defend the argument that the superstitious beliefs and practices of primitive humans is proof of a spiritual reality even though what they believed and practiced has been irrefutably proven wrong and irrational.


However, this phenomenon may give insight into figurative scriptural references to 'the dead', people whose minds have been rendered useless by being defiled and contaminated by the unclean flesh/teaching of lower beasts who swallow any irrational garbage they hear without ruminating.


If you fill your mind with irrational nonsense it will contaminate your thought process and pervert and distort everything you see feel hear think say and do and you will become confused and say and do stupid things.


this is the essence of kosher law whose wisdom has been unintentionally proven and the consequences for failing to guard over the purity of the mind perfectly demonstrated by the original poster of this ridiculous thread.

 

[Youwerecreated]

you've always maintained that the earth was between 6,000 and 10,000 years to say you have not, is a lie .

I have said 6,000 to 10,000 and I have also said 6,000 to 14,000 and I have also stated I just don't know and nobody knows.

Nonsense.

That information is common knowledge, and is available with a quick search:

4.54 billion years.

That is if you trust the current dating methods that is what they say.

 

[Youwerecreated]

you've always maintained that the earth was between 6,000 and 10,000 years to say you have not, is a lie .

I have said 6,000 to 10,000 and I have also said 6,000 to 14,000 and I have also stated I just don't know and nobody knows.

And daws couldn't care less what you said or didn't say. He does not want to understand what you are trying to share with him. He is only trolling and being a dick.

Agreed.

 

[Boss]

You can't be this dumb. It's just not possible. I think you are faking all of this just to get attention! Also, funny that you chide others for name-calling when you call me stupid and an idiot. You're an asshole.

What you are claiming is that everything is relative and subjective, and it isn't, because objective reality exists, and certain things are true and certain things are false.

We weren't talking about what is true and false or objective reality. Don't wriggle away from what you stated and try to pretend we are arguing something different.

We experience objective reality subjectively, which means there is an objective reality that exists independently from our minds, with a truth that we do not decide, only arrive at if we are able to. We don't get to choose what is true and what is false about objective reality, yet this is what you are attempting to imply.

No it's not, we're not talking about objective reality. Why do you keep trying to spin your idiotic statement into something else? You stated that evidence is not subjective, and indeed, evidence IS subjective.

All we can do, is discover the truth about objective reality as best as possible using our five sense, the scientific method (since it has proven highly reliable), and each other to verify our findings and eliminate bias (peer review). It then comes down to what you can demonstrate to be true about OBJECTIVE reality (IF you admit that objective reality exists, which I'm not sure you do). If you do not, then you are a solipsist (good luck with that).

We're not talking about objective reality... had you stated that objective reality wasn't subjective, it would make sense to be talking about it here, but that's not what you said. You claimed evidence was, "by definition," not subjective, and evidence is always subjective.

The scientific method has been the most successful method at ascertaining truths about reality.

The truths about reality in the physical material universe. Like the truth that humans have always been spiritual. The most successful method at ascertaining truths about spiritual reality are gained through human spirituality.

In the last few hundred since its inception, humanity's knowledge about the universe has grown exponentially, evidenced by the vast progress in technology and our understanding of the universe. This should be evidence to anyone that scientific epistemology is effective at getting at truth of reality (unless you want to claim we are consistently getting lucky, which I will gladly laugh at).

Everything in science is prediction of probability. Science deals with the material physical universe, not spiritual nature. God and spiritual nature created science and the physical universe, so it's not surprising it is predictable and some things are more or less probable.

Before science, humans relied on religious epistemologies, which got them no where. Humans thought disease were caused by demons, that thunder was caused by the gods, and that if they prayed, good things would happen. In other words, we were simply wrong, and suffered for it. Now, here you are trying to vindicate this ineffective epistemology. This is laughable. The simplest explanation about spiritual belief, is that humans were and continue to be SIMPLY WRONG.

Humans are still very spiritually connected. Should we go through all the things science thought and was wrong about? Of course, if science had adopted your philosophy on evidence not being subjective, there is no telling what wrong-headed science we'd be worshiping today.

The definition of evidence does not indicate whether it is intrinsically objective or subjective. You said this yourself. Now you are saying it is necessarily subjective.

Pay attention... I said the definition doesn't indicate evidence must be subjective or objective. This is because you stated "evidence, by definition, is not subjective" and that is a false statement. I correctly stated that subjectivity and objectivity are rationales we apply based on our perceptions of the evidence. Evidence is not altruistic or unassailable, it can be disputed, and this is because evidence is subjective. From there, you have chosen to run away from your false claim and pretend we are talking about something else.

Sort yourself out dude. You are confused and really frustrating to deal with, but this hasn't changed. You call me stupid? That's ridiculous. You're the complete idiot here who is the one contradicting himself within a single paragraph. It's hilarious to watch you insult me for things I don't do, but that you do! It's fucking mind-numbing. I've never met anyone as dumb and blind to their own idiocy, as you.

I'm perfectly sorted and not the least bit confused. You are the one who claimed evidence, by definition, is not subjective. I merely challenged your idiocy. Now you are trying to walk that back, change the subject and pretend you were talking about something else, and hurling insults at me as fast as you can. It's amusing and funny to watch you spin, not frustrating to me in the least.

You need to bend evidential standards to allow your "evidence" to be admitted.

Evidential standards which apply to physical evidence in courts, are not applicable to spiritual entities, it is illogical to insist they be applied. As I said, if we were trying to prove physical existence of god in a court, there is no evidence to support this. I've never argued otherwise, but god is a spiritual entity, which doesn't provide physical evidence. If your mind can accept spiritual evidence, the spiritual evidence is overwhelming, and this is why billions of people over thousands of years, have practiced spirituality, and continue to do so.

You are bastardizing epistemology, and this discussion does come down to epistemology, as it always does between theists/deists/spiritualists and atheists. What you call evidence is not what I call evidence, and this is always the case between theists and atheists. I don't care what you call yourself, you're not an atheist. However, we have developed categories of evidence, some of which are less prone to subjective alternation.

But I thought, by definition, all evidence was not subjective? Now you are saying something different. Epistemology is simply the theory of knowledge. It can just as easily be rationally applied to examination of spiritual nature and spiritual evidence, you just don't believe in spiritual nature or spiritual evidence.

Anecdotal is the LEAST reliable, which is what you have. Empirical evidence, especially since it can be verified by other observers, is far more reliable. You do not have empirical evidence. Without empirical evidence, or a syllogistic argument that is valid and sound, your claim falls flat. BELIEF IS NOT EVIDENCE.

You also don't have empirical evidence that god doesn't exist or that human spiritual belief is a fallacy or delusion. Billions and billions of people over thousands and thousands of years, confirm an intrinsic human connection to spiritual nature. The evidence of this is indeed, empirical. There is no physical evidence of material existence of a spiritual entity, and if there ever is such a discovery, the spiritual becomes physical. You are demanding illogical evidence. It's not any different than me demanding that you have God confirm your scientific theories for me, before I will accept them as valid.

The major dishonesty with you, is that you claimed proof of god, which implies empirical, objectively existing, demonstrable evidence. Your evidence is anecdotal, and doesn't actually exist, yet you try to pass it off as objective and spiritual when these attributes can not go together, by your own admission when you said the spiritual can not exist in the physical (objectively), because then it would cease to be spiritual. You have gone back on yourself with this multiple times, so I'll just cite one side of your contradictory stance. Anyway, This is a category error. "Spiritual evidence" is necessarily subjective, and hence, anecdotal, and hence, NOT objective and not "proof." Proof is not subjective, because proof is a mathematical term that denotes CERTAINTY. You can not grant certainty, therefore, you don't have proof.

Again, you are completely wrong. Proof is even more subjective than evidence. Science does not deal in "certainty." Nothing in science claims to be certain and absolute, it is all predicated on probability and prediction. Something with very high predictable probability, can be subjectively evaluated as "certain" by man, but that is reasoning and perception.

Spiritual evidence, for those who accept it, is certainly not anecdotal. The fact that you reject spiritual nature, makes it anecdotal to you, from your perception. I have not argued otherwise. You continue to try and apply illogical criteria to spirituality and spiritual existence, and since spiritual existence means something completely different than physical existence, you can't relate.

Empirical means it can be observed by someone else, and hence, is objective.

70,000+ years... billions and billions of human testimonials.

A fossil exists in objective reality. It still exists whether you want it to or not. Whether you think this is evidence of evolution, is based on your presuppositions about the universe. Of course, but this has to do with reasoning around the evidence, and your evidential standards.

Now you are back to admitting that evidence is subjective. A fossil materially exists in a physical state that can be confirmed by physical science. I've not contradicted this. Whether I subjectively think fossils prove evolution, is a determination made on my perception of the evidence. However, evolution neither disproves god or spiritual nature.

Theists simply deny that any inferences are possible within certain scientific disciplines, such as evolutionary biology, but are okay with inference within other disciplines, which itself is special pleading.

I don't know what theists deny, I am not a theist. I've not denied evolution, although, I have pointed out there is no evidence of cross-genus speciation. There is also no special pleading, those who don't accept spiritual nature can never accept spiritual evidence. It is a "special pleading" to demand physical evidence of something that isn't physical nature.

The hypocrisy is that this level of skepticism would disallow any inferences to be drawn from the bible, or from the phenomenon of human spiritual belief itself. You are in essence, being internally inconsistent, but I don't expect you to see this or respond to it. You will simply insult, condescend, and re-assert your OP like it is a fucking revelation from a god. Using your standards, you should also believe in aliens, Bigfoot, unicorns, and blu-blue. If all you have to go on for truth-claims is hearsay, then you are subject to believe in anything anyone ever tells you. This is why anecdotal "evidence" is hardly evidence at all, and alone is not sufficient to establish the veracity of a claim, unless corroborated by empirical evidence.

My arguments do not mention the bible. You've backed none of your claims that spiritual nature doesn't exist, with anything approaching empiricism. You have no empirical evidence to support such an argument. You have danced around your idiotic claim that evidence is not subjective, and actually made the argument that it's indeed subjective, then you pretend I argued otherwise. You've also claimed that proof is not subjective, and then walked that back as well. What you mean to say is, TRUTH is not subjective, and if that was what you had initially said, I would have agreed. Evidence and proof, are not necessarily truth. Your perception may be that evidence proves a truth, but I don't have to share your perceptions.

 

[BreezeWood]

Life is created by spiritual energy, just like the universe. You said it best, way back in the thread... All life is spiritual.

As for afterlife, I was mostly jerking his chain, I don't know if our spirits live on, but since they aren't confined to physical nature, it's reasonable to presume they do. Death is something experienced in the physical realm. I suppose spirits can "die" or become so weak in energy as to become inconsequential, and absorbed by the rest of spiritual nature.

So there you have it, in just a few short paragraphs. Definitive proof that God exists!

Life is created by spiritual energy ....

Like I said, there is positive and negative spiritual energy - No species of animal we have ever studied, just does something inherently, with no fundamental reason - The "god" I believe in, doesn't have humanistic attributes, doesn't judge your actions, doesn't condemn you to hell, doesn't need you to worship it, doesn't love or hate you.

there is something a little confusing to your: "Definitive proof that God exists!"

you have stated there exists both Positive and Negative spiritual energy - and that "Life is created by spiritual energy" as agreed - but also there exists a certainty that all living matter at its inception be Pure as the defining ingredient for it to exist ... so where in your "Definitive" proof by your definition of "God" is the purity between Positive and Negative Spirituality resolved ?

Well, I never stated that all living matter must be "pure" and I am not sure what parameters are being set here, with the use of this particular word. There does seem to be a fairly common understanding among us, of what is "good" and what is "evil," even if the lines are sometimes blurred.

OP: We often hear the God-haters chortle... you don't have definitive proof that god exists, therefore, it must be a fallacy.

no, there is not an instance of your using the term "pure" I am aware of - nor any discussion from you of an objective corollary between your god and the physical universe.

did your god spit [sic] in dirt and create life - "Definitive proof that God exists!" - if you fail to believe at inception life must be pure, ok or the same for a DNA molecule or as well according to you there is inherently positive and negative than one over the other ...

however for the religious the opposite of the above does seem factual and necessary to a process that did lead to the creation of life and when / if fully understandable may answer the question of imortality ...

so is there a corollary between how you have defined god - (The "god" I believe in, doesn't have humanistic attributes, doesn't judge your actions, doesn't condemn you to hell, doesn't need you to worship it, doesn't love or hate you) and the creation of the universe and life ?

 

[Boss]

So there you have it, in just a few short paragraphs. Definitive proof that God exists!

there is something a little confusing to your: "Definitive proof that God exists!"

you have stated there exists both Positive and Negative spiritual energy - and that "Life is created by spiritual energy" as agreed - but also there exists a certainty that all living matter at its inception be Pure as the defining ingredient for it to exist ... so where in your "Definitive" proof by your definition of "God" is the purity between Positive and Negative Spirituality resolved ?

Well, I never stated that all living matter must be "pure" and I am not sure what parameters are being set here, with the use of this particular word. There does seem to be a fairly common understanding among us, of what is "good" and what is "evil," even if the lines are sometimes blurred.

OP: We often hear the God-haters chortle... you don't have definitive proof that god exists, therefore, it must be a fallacy.

no, there is not an instance of your using the term "pure" I am aware of - nor any discussion from you of an objective corollary between your god and the physical universe.

did your god spit [sic] in dirt and create life - "Definitive proof that God exists!" - if you fail to believe at inception life must be pure, ok or the same for a DNA molecule or as well according to you there is inherently positive and negative than one over the other ...

however for the religious the opposite of the above does seem factual and necessary to a process that did lead to the creation of life and when / if fully understandable may answer the question of imortality ...

so is there a corollary between how you have defined god - (The "god" I believe in, doesn't have humanistic attributes, doesn't judge your actions, doesn't condemn you to hell, doesn't need you to worship it, doesn't love or hate you) and the creation of the universe and life ?

Your posts are intriguing to me, because I can never figure out if you are genius stuck inside a moron's brain, or an insane person exhibiting signs of genius. Your convoluted statements morph into convoluted and confusing questions, and I have trouble discerning what exactly you are asking me.

I defined what I personally believe is god, to satisfy the incessant calls for me to stipulate this information. I have admitted that my perception of god could be wrong, but it is my understanding. The interesting thing here is, I believe that god manifests itself in various ways with different individuals, meaning that my god and someone else's god can both be true at the same time. We have a hard time comprehending this, because our physical reality doesn't afford two different truths at the same time. However, in spiritual nature, two things can be true at the same time. Spiritual nature is not bound by physical nature or standards of the material universe.

I posit the idea that spiritual nature created the universe, because we theorize there was no physical universe prior to the big bang. Nothing in the physical universe could have created the physical universe because it didn't exist yet. Since we know, through observation of human behavior over all our existence, that spiritual nature is certainly present, it stands to reason this was the creating force of the universe and life itself.

 

[daws101]

axed me?

lol, yeah, I wanted you to understand, dumbshit.

I already understand you suffer from dyslexia among other disorders.
arguing from a false premise and hubris just to name a few!

 

[daws101]

And who says that fundie zealots don't represent the stereotypical angry, self-hating personality disorder.

they do? but that's a symptom of the disorder..
notice how fast JB went from rational and reasonable to the you don't know shit rampage. when his belief was threatened...

lol, show me where someone threatened my beliefs? Hell no one has described my beliefs as of yet, so I doubt anyone has threatened anything at all.

daws, does your mommy know you are on the computer again?

once again proving my point for me.
this post is a good example of overreaction to having your gaged rattled.

 

[daws101]

Oh, and thank YOU for proving MY point for me!

roflmao. you really are a stupid ****.

you mean the one you comb your hair around?
no problem.

Heheh, now you are fantasizing about me combing your hair?

This is your preferred level of discussion; school yard bullshit because you do not know what the fuck you are talking about, loser.

yep dyslexia...

 

[klatu]

This conversation is only going on, as it has been for ever and a day, because of the presumption, theologically built into all Christian/Judeo teaching and tradition, whether fundamentalist, orthodox or otherwise, that a fully demonstrable proof, one that meets all Enlightenment criteria is not possible. Ironically science shares this opinion with religion!

But lets start with a definition: The only truly definitive proof of God would be by a path of faith 'revealed' by God which is then confirmed by God in a direct, irrefutable intervention into the natural world. Few would dispute this in principle. Well that seemingly impossible principle has now happened! And there could be a lot of theological gnashing of teeth in the near future.

The first wholly new interpretation for two thousand years of the moral teachings of Christ has been published. Radically different from anything else we know of from theology or history, this new teaching is predicated upon the 'promise' of a precise, predefined, and predictable experience of transcendent omnipotence and called 'the first Resurrection' in the sense that the Resurrection of Jesus was intended to demonstrate Gods' willingness to reveal Himself and intervene directly into the natural world for those obedient to His will, paving the way for access, by faith, to the power of divine Will and ultimate proof!

Thus 'faith' becomes an act of trust in action, the search to discover His 'Word' of a direct individual intervention into the natural world by omnipotent power that confirms divine will, law, command and covenant, which at the same time, realigns our mortal moral compass with the Divine, "correcting human nature by a change in natural law, altering biology, consciousness and human ethical perception beyond all natural evolutionary boundaries." So like it or no, a new religious teaching, testable by faith, meeting all Enlightenment criteria of evidence based causation and definitive proof now exists.

Nothing short of an intellectual, moral and religious revolution is getting under way. I've started testing this new teaching for myself. And testable truth trumps all opinion. However ancient, learned, scholastic or otherwise. To test or not to test, that is the question and the measure of noble hearts? For more info Google: The Final Freedoms

 

[daws101]

Yes you made that claim and I tested you with a question and I knew you got your answer from a google then made the claim you learned it in high school then went on to say you took a genetics class in high school and compared it to micro biology not understanding what those fields taught. I pointed it out to you the question I asked can best be answered through molecular biology which is a fact.

You really can't be this stupid can you ?

wrong I stated a fact...I never compared it to microbiology..... you did.
as always you made a false assumption "you got it from Google" ..
so again you're attempting to misrepresent the facts.

Time to plant this fruit once and for all you moron.

I forgot this little gem. Daws "I post this slapdick to show you high schools were teaching gene "theory" as part of biology in 1977 the year I graduated high school.
so as always somebody's talking out their ass and it's not me..."

This had nothing to do with the question dummy. Now look up gene theory.

The question would not be a genetics question lol.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/7344796-post16536.html

Now for the big lie You did do what you said you didn't.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/7345652-post16545.html

Seriously daws you don't know shit concerning science and you claimed you have more of a science background plus you had 6 years of science not by what I read. Please continue

More bullshit

http://www.usmessageboard.com/7346025-post16557.html

Twice you did

Now for the original question.

Quote of my question.

"You make an awful lot of your science background. I will ask you one simple college question and see if you can answer it.

According to theory earth's earliest organisms was made up of what MOLECULE ?"

Geez, it is fun showing what a stupid dick and liar you're.

all this effort to cover your lies .if you put that much effort into actual science you'd be a lot less willfully ignorant

none of my "quotes" are bullshit but your attempt to make them seem that way is...

 

[daws101]

Show me where I stated the earth and universe are 6,000 years old.

you've always maintained that the earth was between 6,000 and 10,000 years to say you have not, is a lie .

I have said 6,000 to 10,000 and I have also said 6,000 to 14,000 and I have also stated I just don't know and nobody knows.

an after the fact qualification is still a lie.
you posts on the creationist thread had no such qualifiers.
man the fuck up and take responsibility for your actions..

 

[daws101]

Who the fuck is appealing to ignorance? Have you axed me what my evidence is? No, so dont give me this appeal to ignorance shit.



Fuck you.



Beliefs dont have to 'over' other beliefs to be true. Some Truths are exactly subjective.



I walked down to the lake and the water was 60 degrees Farenheit. Is that repeatable? Of course not, as any other measurement would be a different measurement at another time and place.

I was at the store when it got robbed. I saw that one of the robbers was a guy I knew from my Spanish class. Doesnt fit into any of your overly narrow and dogmatic categories of what is knowlege.

I love my wife. Prove that. Prove that it is not true either, I dont care. Most truths we live by day to day have absolutely zip, nada, nothing whatsoever to do with science or math.



Bullshit. Why would anyone assert such when any evidence of the existance of God is immediately capable of being redefined as not God, much as the Big Bang has now become a secularized concept of NOT being God's act of creation to you blinded fools, but because science has learned the Truth that the whole fucking universe came into existence in a split second and now that science can measure some evidence of the event, well, now it has nothing to do with God at all! lol

You live in the midst of a ecreated by God, immersed in God Himself as He transcends His Creation, and you cant see Him becasue you wont open up your fucking eyes. Everything you touch, hear, see and smell or taste is a partial manifestation of God's Will, His Imagination.

But you cant see that because you dont want to see it. lol



I am not going to defend what amounts to one tenth or less of the Christian world. Let the fundamentalists and other YEC defend themselves, if you want that.



Oh nose! I twemnble in my bootsies! lol

The dimsissal of fools is to the credit of the wise. When dumbasses cant grasp a simple distinction as the difference between a Creator that created space and time as opposed to some 'god' who is the creature of space and time, then that person is a dumbass.



Yeah because Marxists have never done that, or hunted each other down and murdered them or slaughtering hundreds of millions of people for not agreeing with them...oops, wait, the Stalinst atheists, Maoist atheists... ah nm. lololol



What, there are other religions? Well whod a thunk dat?

lol, you embicile. thanks for the chuckle.

Yes, there is a huge difference between the Abrahamic faiths and the nonAbrahamic faiths. One of which is that the Abrahamic faiths cover the globe, have millions of adherents in every country, out number other types of religions in almost all countries, and all claim to have valid evidence based on historical facts and reason and all came from the relationship one man had with God a long time ago. There is no other religion like it at all in that respect.

That you dont bother to even try to learn any of this and you suppose that I am as ignorant as you are is simply insane.

You are a demonstrable ignoramus and anti-Christian bigot.



And you should pull your head out of your ass, shit-for-brains.

axed me?

Didn't you use the term Typo the other day to excuse yourself

yes I did, if you read Jb reply he like yourself is attempting to BullShit his way out of it .
that being said what ever non point you attempting to make was as always an epic fail.

 

[Youwerecreated]

wrong I stated a fact...I never compared it to microbiology..... you did.
as always you made a false assumption "you got it from Google" ..
so again you're attempting to misrepresent the facts.

Time to plant this fruit once and for all you moron.

I forgot this little gem. Daws "I post this slapdick to show you high schools were teaching gene "theory" as part of biology in 1977 the year I graduated high school.
so as always somebody's talking out their ass and it's not me..."

This had nothing to do with the question dummy. Now look up gene theory.

The question would not be a genetics question lol.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/7344796-post16536.html

Now for the big lie You did do what you said you didn't.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/7345652-post16545.html

Seriously daws you don't know shit concerning science and you claimed you have more of a science background plus you had 6 years of science not by what I read. Please continue

More bullshit

http://www.usmessageboard.com/7346025-post16557.html

Twice you did

Now for the original question.

Quote of my question.

"You make an awful lot of your science background. I will ask you one simple college question and see if you can answer it.

According to theory earth's earliest organisms was made up of what MOLECULE ?"

Geez, it is fun showing what a stupid dick and liar you're.

all this effort to cover your lies .if you put that much effort into actual science you'd be a lot less willfully ignorant

none of my "quotes" are bullshit but your attempt to make them seem that way is...

The only one lying and is ignorant of the facts are you. People can read what you posted and what I posted nitwit.

 

[daws101]

you've always maintained that the earth was between 6,000 and 10,000 years to say you have not, is a lie .

I have said 6,000 to 10,000 and I have also said 6,000 to 14,000 and I have also stated I just don't know and nobody knows.

Nonsense.

That information is common knowledge, and is available with a quick search:

4.54 billion years.

bump!