Definitive Proof that GOD Exists?

[daws101]

I understand reality is an insurmountable concept for you.

Reality is you lie and are a fraud.

(place irony here!)

 

[Youwerecreated]

I understand reality is an insurmountable concept for you.

Reality is you lie and are a fraud.

(place irony here!)

[ame=http://youtu.be/L6Ii7pfcGzk]Creationism - Penn & Teller Bullshit! - YouTube[/ame]

Hey Daws here is your chance to correct the mistake. What am I lying about ? Explain why you're not lying ?

 

[Boss]

And that point is still wrong because as was pointed out, the universe is chaotic. You are simply pontificating that chaos is a pattern. Blow something up and you set it in motion. The universe is in motion with something colliding into something else due to that chaotic motion. For short periods you might observe some gravitational patterns to the objects in chaotic motion, but the patterns never last. Chaos wins out in the end.

What is a "short period of time" in relation to the universe and physical existence? What we observe, from the smallest atom to the farthest planetary system, is similarity of pattern. i.e.; design. Even the chaotic events in the universe are predictable, because physics has order, it isn't random. You simply can't argue that "chaos wins out in the end" because we've not reached "the end" of time yet. According to Dorito, the universe doesn't have a beginning or end, so how can chaos win out in the end?

You seem to think that if you repeat your erroneous pontification that by your almighty authority it is declared to be true.

The most common pattern in the universe is the vortex. In no atom, from the smallest to the largest, do the electrons orbit in a vortex. So your bullshit breaks down immediately no matter how much you pontificate.

And as was pointed out, while the universe has no beginning or end, TIME does. In time, all the chaotic matter in the universe will have collided into one universal unstable compressed mass that will again go bang and time will begin again.

And this is a wonderful little fairy tale that science and physics doesn't support.

 

[edthecynic]

What is a "short period of time" in relation to the universe and physical existence? What we observe, from the smallest atom to the farthest planetary system, is similarity of pattern. i.e.; design. Even the chaotic events in the universe are predictable, because physics has order, it isn't random. You simply can't argue that "chaos wins out in the end" because we've not reached "the end" of time yet. According to Dorito, the universe doesn't have a beginning or end, so how can chaos win out in the end?

You seem to think that if you repeat your erroneous pontification that by your almighty authority it is declared to be true.

The most common pattern in the universe is the vortex. In no atom, from the smallest to the largest, do the electrons orbit in a vortex. So your bullshit breaks down immediately no matter how much you pontificate.

And as was pointed out, while the universe has no beginning or end, TIME does. In time, all the chaotic matter in the universe will have collided into one universal unstable compressed mass that will again go bang and time will begin again.

And this is a wonderful little fairy tale that science and physics doesn't support.

I love how a pompous idiot who thinks protons and neutrons rotate around an atom acts like he knows what science and physics support. One of the three possible fates of the universe is the "Big Crunch" I described above in layman's terms for a simpleton like you.

 

[BreezeWood]

.....

I find this is the biggest error made by the disbelievers. They constantly want to apply physical science, laws of physics and physical nature, and preconceptions of thought and words pertaining to physical reality, to the spiritual nature. I think that we can ALL agree, spiritual nature doesn't physically exist. Why would the rules and concepts behind physical nature, have anything at all to do with spiritual nature? ...Other than, to prove that spiritual nature is intelligent in the designing of physical nature itself?

"I think that we can ALL agree, spiritual nature doesn't physically exist."


life on earth is not exclusive -

... are you able to detach "yourself" from your physiology to fly around the room and them return to your body ?

we may agree your statement makes sense abstractly but the fact is on this planet spiritual nature does physically exist as physiology being one in the same (being the problem) and likely perishes when the physicality takes its last breath.

... somewhere you have detached yourself from reality, your imortality has preceded your ability to sustain it.



Why would the rules and concepts behind physical nature, have anything at all to do with spiritual nature?

why would they be exclusive - even in the abstract does it make sense to have one without the other.

why would the thought be greater than the object ?

I find this is the biggest error made by the disbelievers. They constantly want to apply physical science, laws of physics and physical nature, and preconceptions of thought and words pertaining to physical reality, to the spiritual nature.

well, the short story is the religious will always combine the two as equal in importance or better, our God is the Garden.



Atheistic Spiritualism

 

[Boss]

You seem to think that if you repeat your erroneous pontification that by your almighty authority it is declared to be true.

The most common pattern in the universe is the vortex. In no atom, from the smallest to the largest, do the electrons orbit in a vortex. So your bullshit breaks down immediately no matter how much you pontificate.

And as was pointed out, while the universe has no beginning or end, TIME does. In time, all the chaotic matter in the universe will have collided into one universal unstable compressed mass that will again go bang and time will begin again.

And this is a wonderful little fairy tale that science and physics doesn't support.

I love how a pompous idiot who thinks protons and neutrons rotate around an atom acts like he knows what science and physics support. One of the three possible fates of the universe is the "Big Crunch" I described above in layman's terms for a simpleton like you.

Wow.... what an intelligently designed and ingenious system of function!

Hmmmm.......

 

[Boss]

Here is why the Big Crunch Theory now exists... Because the Big Bang Theory didn't sufficiently contradict an intelligent designer. The findings in the universe, constantly expanding, had proven that this Big Bang thing had happened, but if physical universe was not in existence yet, what caused it to go boom? Since believing in creation was not an option, they began to ponder how to cycle back to where the bang completes a revolution, and they developed this theory, along with discovery of black holes, that maybe the universe contracts as well, and we simply haven't been around long enough to know?

Make no mistake, if this theory had ever been tested and proven, we wouldn't be having this conversation. So there's simply no peer-reviewed evidence to consider, no published findings in science journals, not a damn thing in the universe to support this theory that the universe contracts and regenerates, as the cute little illustration depicts. Not a goddamn thing!

Yet... here it is, presented as if this is the scientific FACT that no one can refute or question! The really astonishing thing is, even if they are entirely correct, and the universe operates in a systematic way, like the freaking cycles on a washing machine... does that somehow "disprove" an intelligent designing force? Or is it more evidence OF such a force?

 

[JimBowie1958]

My point is that an infinitely old universe is impossible due to the nature of infinite limits. They can be approached but never reached. Infinitely distant limits from the negative side are impossible to derive from as there is no starting point.

Infinity is not a mathematical value.

Limit of a function - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Infinity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia






Of course they do. All mathematical concepts apply in some way to matter and of those that do not appear to (very very few), if historical patterns hold, then eventually some realtion to the material universe will be found for them.

Your premise rests upon an assumption that there is "an infinite source of energy" which begs the question as to what "created" that source in the first place.

You do not seem to grasp the nature of what 'infinite' means. Look at a number line, with the left side progressing toward negative infinity and the right side progressing to positive infinity. There is no point before negative infinity, nor after positive infinity.

Cantor explored these infinite values and infinite sets quite a bit and his set number system is considered essential to modern mathematics, and he firmly believed that his transfinite numbers proved the existence of God at least as a concept.

An infinite universe that has always existed and will always exist does not need any such assumptions and is in full compliance with the conservation of mass.

1. We know the universe is not infinite. Any model that is infinite is outside our known universe and as fanciful and nonscientific as any other notion of what might be outside our universe.

2. An infinite universe is still subject to the first moment problem. IF there is no first moment in time, then nothing can follow after to the present. There is nothing for the universe to come after.

bump for Derideo_te

 

[JimBowie1958]

I have read different ideas on what actually existed at time point ZERO. Some seem to think that there was nothing prior to ZERO, some say it was there before but only sprang into existence in an instant. Some say Membranes of an interdimensional region 'touched' (whatever that actually means) and caused the Big Bang.

All I know is this: no matter how many iterations of time you use, whether linear, circular or spiral or whatever, an infinite number of finite periods of time cannot have preceded the present. It is as impossible as counting to and down from an infinite value. Cant happen. This fact is not of the Xeno paradox sort in that no time is reduced in parallel to with distance, etc. This infinite limit is simply a mathematical fact.

That is not what is being proposed. There is only a single infinite universe of space/time. The period of time that we are counting from the current big bang is meaningless as far as the universe is concerned. It is an entirely arbitrary limitation that we are using from our own myopic perspective. The universe has always existed and while it constantly changes form it has no limitations as far as time is concerned.

The flow of time must have a first moment in time for the simple fact that if there is no first moment in time, then there is nothing for time to come after. If there is no first hour, then there are no hours that follow. If there is no first second, then no seconds can follow.

The universe cannot have always existed. It is impossible.

bump for Derideo_Te.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Here is why the Big Crunch Theory now exists... Because the Big Bang Theory didn't sufficiently contradict an intelligent designer. The findings in the universe, constantly expanding, had proven that this Big Bang thing had happened, but if physical universe was not in existence yet, what caused it to go boom? Since believing in creation was not an option, they began to ponder how to cycle back to where the bang completes a revolution, and they developed this theory, along with discovery of black holes, that maybe the universe contracts as well, and we simply haven't been around long enough to know?

Make no mistake, if this theory had ever been tested and proven, we wouldn't be having this conversation. So there's simply no peer-reviewed evidence to consider, no published findings in science journals, not a damn thing in the universe to support this theory that the universe contracts and regenerates, as the cute little illustration depicts. Not a goddamn thing!

Yet... here it is, presented as if this is the scientific FACT that no one can refute or question! The really astonishing thing is, even if they are entirely correct, and the universe operates in a systematic way, like the freaking cycles on a washing machine... does that somehow "disprove" an intelligent designing force? Or is it more evidence OF such a force?

Discovery of Accelerating Universe Wins 2011 Nobel Prize in Physics: Scientific American

The 2011 Nobel Prize in physics was awarded today to Saul Perlmutter at the Lawrence Berkeley National Lab, Brian Schmidt at the Australian National Lab and Adam Reiss at Johns Hopkins University for their discovery of the accelerating expansion of the universe.

“In a universe which is dominated by matter, one would expect gravity eventually should make the expansion slow down, the Royal Swedish Academy’s Olga Botner said this morning at the announcement event in Stockholm. "Imagine then the utter astonishment when two groups of scientists headed by this year’s Nobel Laureates in 1998 discovered that the expansion was not slowing down, it was actually accelerating."

"By comparing the brightness of distant, far-away supernovae with the brightness of nearby supernovae," Botner continued, "the scientists discovered that the far-away supernovae were about 25 percent too faint. They were too far away. The universe was accelerating. And so this discovery is fundamental and a milestone for cosmology. And a challenge for generations of scientists to come.”

So the Big Crunch is not happening as it is proven that the universe is not only expanding but ACCELERATING in its expansion. This contradicts any notion of a Big Crunch.

 

[JimBowie1958]

You seem to think that if you repeat your erroneous pontification that by your almighty authority it is declared to be true.

The most common pattern in the universe is the vortex. In no atom, from the smallest to the largest, do the electrons orbit in a vortex. So your bullshit breaks down immediately no matter how much you pontificate.

And as was pointed out, while the universe has no beginning or end, TIME does. In time, all the chaotic matter in the universe will have collided into one universal unstable compressed mass that will again go bang and time will begin again.

And this is a wonderful little fairy tale that science and physics doesn't support.

I love how a pompous idiot who thinks protons and neutrons rotate around an atom acts like he knows what science and physics support. One of the three possible fates of the universe is the "Big Crunch" I described above in layman's terms for a simpleton like you.

The expansion of the universe is proven to be accelerating.

There will be no Big Crunch.

There are some theories that are speculative and not supported by any science at the moment but that 'work around' the accelerating universe problem, but so far all the concepts tossed out essentially to support an infinitely lasting universe have been proven wrong, and I don't see any reason to suppose this will stop. It seems that atheists are so desperate to believe the universe is of infinite duration that they propose fanciful things that science consistently knocks down.

 

[JimBowie1958]

And that point is still wrong because as was pointed out, the universe is chaotic. You are simply pontificating that chaos is a pattern. Blow something up and you set it in motion. The universe is in motion with something colliding into something else due to that chaotic motion. For short periods you might observe some gravitational patterns to the objects in chaotic motion, but the patterns never last. Chaos wins out in the end.

What is a "short period of time" in relation to the universe and physical existence? What we observe, from the smallest atom to the farthest planetary system, is similarity of pattern. i.e.; design. Even the chaotic events in the universe are predictable, because physics has order, it isn't random. You simply can't argue that "chaos wins out in the end" because we've not reached "the end" of time yet. According to Dorito, the universe doesn't have a beginning or end, so how can chaos win out in the end?

You seem to think that if you repeat your erroneous pontification that by your almighty authority it is declared to be true.

The most common pattern in the universe is the vortex. In no atom, from the smallest to the largest, do the electrons orbit in a vortex. So your bullshit breaks down immediately no matter how much you pontificate.

And as was pointed out, while the universe has no beginning or end, TIME does. In time, all the chaotic matter in the universe will have collided into one universal unstable compressed mass that will again go bang and time will begin again.

lol, no it wont, no matter how many times you close your eyes and click your heels together.

Time and space are joined at the hip. If one is of finite duration then the other is also.

An infinite accelerating universe is nonsense as the total mass would crush it back in on itself in infinitesimal time.

 

[edthecynic]

And this is a wonderful little fairy tale that science and physics doesn't support.

I love how a pompous idiot who thinks protons and neutrons rotate around an atom acts like he knows what science and physics support. One of the three possible fates of the universe is the "Big Crunch" I described above in layman's terms for a simpleton like you.

Wow.... what an intelligently designed and ingenious system of function!

Hmmmm.......

Nope, just the chaos of gravity. But that was an amazing shift of gears from something unsupported by science and physics to an intelligently designed and ingenious system of function!

 

[Boss]

Nope, just the chaos of gravity. But that was an amazing shift of gears from something unsupported by science and physics to an intelligently designed and ingenious system of function!

Is this theory repeatable and testable? If not, it still has no basis in science or physics. Still, it appears to be a functional "system" which indicates intelligent design and pattern, not chaos. So there is actually a DOUBLE-fail here.... 1st, this is an unsupported THEORY and 2nd, it denotes design and pattern.

 

[edthecynic]

Here is why the Big Crunch Theory now exists... Because the Big Bang Theory didn't sufficiently contradict an intelligent designer. The findings in the universe, constantly expanding, had proven that this Big Bang thing had happened, but if physical universe was not in existence yet, what caused it to go boom? Since believing in creation was not an option, they began to ponder how to cycle back to where the bang completes a revolution, and they developed this theory, along with discovery of black holes, that maybe the universe contracts as well, and we simply haven't been around long enough to know?

Make no mistake, if this theory had ever been tested and proven, we wouldn't be having this conversation. So there's simply no peer-reviewed evidence to consider, no published findings in science journals, not a damn thing in the universe to support this theory that the universe contracts and regenerates, as the cute little illustration depicts. Not a goddamn thing!

Yet... here it is, presented as if this is the scientific FACT that no one can refute or question! The really astonishing thing is, even if they are entirely correct, and the universe operates in a systematic way, like the freaking cycles on a washing machine... does that somehow "disprove" an intelligent designing force? Or is it more evidence OF such a force?

We have the word of someone whose expertise says that protons and neutrons revolve around atoms like planets around the sun.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyclic_model

In the 1920s, theoretical physicists, most notably Albert Einstein, considered the possibility of a cyclic model for the universe as an (everlasting) alternative to the model of an expanding universe. However, work by Richard C. Tolman in 1934 showed that these early attempts failed because of the cyclic problem: according to the Second Law of Thermodynamics, entropy can only increase.[1] This implies that successive cycles grow longer and larger. Extrapolating back in time, cycles before the present one become shorter and smaller culminating again in a Big Bang and thus not replacing it. This puzzling situation remained for many decades until the early 21st century when the recently discovered dark energy component provided new hope for a consistent cyclic cosmology.[2] In 2011, a five-year survey of 200,000 galaxies and spanning 7 billion years of cosmic time confirmed that "dark energy is driving our universe apart at accelerating speeds."[3][4]

One new cyclic model is a brane cosmology model of the creation of the universe, derived from the earlier ekpyrotic model. It was proposed in 2001 by Paul Steinhardt of Princeton University and Neil Turok of Cambridge University. The theory describes a universe exploding into existence not just once, but repeatedly over time.[5][6] The theory could potentially explain why a mysterious, repulsive form of energy known as the cosmological constant, which is accelerating the expansion of the universe, is several orders of magnitude smaller than predicted by the standard Big Bang model.

A different cyclic model relying on the notion of phantom energy was proposed in 2007 by Lauris Baum and Paul Frampton of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.[7]

Other cyclic models include Conformal Cyclic Cosmology and Loop quantum cosmology.

 

[edthecynic]

And this is a wonderful little fairy tale that science and physics doesn't support.

I love how a pompous idiot who thinks protons and neutrons rotate around an atom acts like he knows what science and physics support. One of the three possible fates of the universe is the "Big Crunch" I described above in layman's terms for a simpleton like you.

The expansion of the universe is proven to be accelerating.

There will be no Big Crunch.

There are some theories that are speculative and not supported by any science at the moment but that 'work around' the accelerating universe problem, but so far all the concepts tossed out essentially to support an infinitely lasting universe have been proven wrong, and I don't see any reason to suppose this will stop. It seems that atheists are so desperate to believe the universe is of infinite duration that they propose fanciful things that science consistently knocks down.

Not exactly, the oldest farthest extremes of the universe are found to be accelerating away from us, but that does not necessarily mean they are expanding. They could also be accelerating towards a super massive universal black hole and therefore be contracting.

You seem to have an infinitely expanding universe confused with a cyclic universe.

 

[edthecynic]

Here is why the Big Crunch Theory now exists... Because the Big Bang Theory didn't sufficiently contradict an intelligent designer. The findings in the universe, constantly expanding, had proven that this Big Bang thing had happened, but if physical universe was not in existence yet, what caused it to go boom? Since believing in creation was not an option, they began to ponder how to cycle back to where the bang completes a revolution, and they developed this theory, along with discovery of black holes, that maybe the universe contracts as well, and we simply haven't been around long enough to know?

Make no mistake, if this theory had ever been tested and proven, we wouldn't be having this conversation. So there's simply no peer-reviewed evidence to consider, no published findings in science journals, not a damn thing in the universe to support this theory that the universe contracts and regenerates, as the cute little illustration depicts. Not a goddamn thing!

Yet... here it is, presented as if this is the scientific FACT that no one can refute or question! The really astonishing thing is, even if they are entirely correct, and the universe operates in a systematic way, like the freaking cycles on a washing machine... does that somehow "disprove" an intelligent designing force? Or is it more evidence OF such a force?

Discovery of Accelerating Universe Wins 2011 Nobel Prize in Physics: Scientific American

The 2011 Nobel Prize in physics was awarded today to Saul Perlmutter at the Lawrence Berkeley National Lab, Brian Schmidt at the Australian National Lab and Adam Reiss at Johns Hopkins University for their discovery of the accelerating expansion of the universe.

“In a universe which is dominated by matter, one would expect gravity eventually should make the expansion slow down, the Royal Swedish Academy’s Olga Botner said this morning at the announcement event in Stockholm. "Imagine then the utter astonishment when two groups of scientists headed by this year’s Nobel Laureates in 1998 discovered that the expansion was not slowing down, it was actually accelerating."

"By comparing the brightness of distant, far-away supernovae with the brightness of nearby supernovae," Botner continued, "the scientists discovered that the far-away supernovae were about 25 percent too faint. They were too far away. The universe was accelerating. And so this discovery is fundamental and a milestone for cosmology. And a challenge for generations of scientists to come.”

So the Big Crunch is not happening as it is proven that the universe is not only expanding but ACCELERATING in its expansion. This contradicts any notion of a Big Crunch.

Again, if you pay attention to what is actually proven and what is assumed based on what was proven you find that it is only proven that the farthest extremes of the universe are ACCELERATING. What is ASSUMED is that acceleration is the result of expansion due to some as yet unproven dark energy. However the ACCELERATION could also be the result of the gravitational pull of a super massive universal black hole which would support a contracting universe. The matter is hardly settled, but the Big Crunch does not require an as of yet unproven dark energy and therefore is a better fit with our known phenomena.

 

[Hollie]

Here is why the Big Crunch Theory now exists... Because the Big Bang Theory didn't sufficiently contradict an intelligent designer. The findings in the universe, constantly expanding, had proven that this Big Bang thing had happened, but if physical universe was not in existence yet, what caused it to go boom? Since believing in creation was not an option, they began to ponder how to cycle back to where the bang completes a revolution, and they developed this theory, along with discovery of black holes, that maybe the universe contracts as well, and we simply haven't been around long enough to know?

Make no mistake, if this theory had ever been tested and proven, we wouldn't be having this conversation. So there's simply no peer-reviewed evidence to consider, no published findings in science journals, not a damn thing in the universe to support this theory that the universe contracts and regenerates, as the cute little illustration depicts. Not a goddamn thing!

Yet... here it is, presented as if this is the scientific FACT that no one can refute or question! The really astonishing thing is, even if they are entirely correct, and the universe operates in a systematic way, like the freaking cycles on a washing machine... does that somehow "disprove" an intelligent designing force? Or is it more evidence OF such a force?

The above truly displays the fallacy of the intelligent design creationist. You should be aware that the theories surrounding the Big Bang and the Big Crunch are not intended to contradict your religious beliefs. They are theories, proposed to account for the function of nature based upon the available science. The hyper-religious such as Boss predefine the function of nature as being subordinate to his gawds / supermagical intelligent designer. For that personality type, all of nature can be explained with the four word, “the gawds did it”.


Religious faith is not a requirement to understand the natural world. And in fact, faith can often be a limitation to exploration and the seeking of knowledge. “Holy texts” laud faith. Faith is needed only when reason fails. If reason fails, then anything outside of reason by definition is irrational. The Universe is eminently explicable in Natural terms; obviously not every mystery has been penetrated, but many things that were beyond our understanding 50 years ago are now commonly accepted facts. This has been the history of humanity. Why should we assume such intellectual evolution will cease? Reason and empirical evidence verifies our existence, and faith is necessary only when non-authorities attempt to foist their non-authoritative points of view on those gullible enough to either follow or have need to follow.

We see clearly that Boss leads his argumentation with the prior insistence that his gawds are true and thus, requires that science must be false because it doesn't "disprove" his gawds.

Humanity is evolving away from gawds mythologies, that much is clear. Religious beliefs have nowhere near the power and clout they used to, and as science progresses forward, the god of the gaps pleadings get thinner and thinner.

 

[Hollie]

Nope, just the chaos of gravity. But that was an amazing shift of gears from something unsupported by science and physics to an intelligently designed and ingenious system of function!

Is this theory repeatable and testable? If not, it still has no basis in science or physics. Still, it appears to be a functional "system" which indicates intelligent design and pattern, not chaos. So there is actually a DOUBLE-fail here.... 1st, this is an unsupported THEORY and 2nd, it denotes design and pattern.

Yet another nonsensical claim. Patterns in nature have no requirement for "design" as the result of your alleged "intelligent designer". Yet your continued appeals to religion and gawds.

Invoking your intelligent design creationism as an answer to the natural world is fine as a matter of religious faith. But it is not science in any sense. In science, there is no allowance for making appeals to divine intervention. Miracles of religion are not allowed for science to remain science. Miracles are not verifiable, testable or falsifiable. They are not repeatable, they do not conform to any laws of nature, and they’re not even understandable. Science can never confirm the magic of gawds. They are not a matter for science. Science looks for testable and repeatable observations in nature that can be explained without appeals to gawds. Once you have used a miracle as an explanation, you have left the realm of science, and you’re simply waving the magic wand of religion.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Yet another mindless noise response devoid of all hard facts. We have all come to expect your creationist kneejerk obtuseness. Have a nice day.

It appears your "hard facts" are your opinions. This is based on the obvious lack of presentation on your part, of anything approaching a "hard fact" or "fact" of any type, for that matter. We are entertained with yet another barrage of hate-filled ridicule and name-calling, intertwined with mass doses of your intellectual opinion. Then we get a layer of lies and distortions, along with another dose of insults and opinion. Page after page, you have repeated this process, and it's just not working for you. Of course, your buddies are all here to cheer you on, and reassure you that you are "winning" the debate, but you haven't even started debating. No evidence has been presented on your part, it's all rhetorical opinion, most of which is adequately debunked with basic logic and common sense.

I'm not sure how long you have been debating on message boards, and perhaps this is the strategy you find most effective at "winning" a debate; to demagogue your opponent and filibuster the thread with nonsensical opinions and lies until he simply throws up his hands in frustration and leaves? But I can assure you, this tactic isn't going to work on me. I will continue to expose you as someone who has presented no evidence to support your opinions, and a habitual liar.

at the sheer IRONY! This is exactly what you have been doing since you started this whole thread. The first sentence of your OP begins with an insult and goes downhill from there. Too bad that projecting your own failings onto others isn't bringing hordes of believers to your creationist cause. Obviously they aren't swallowing what you are spewing either. Instead all you have achieved is to make yourself into an object of ridicule and derision. Great job!