People are going to have to face the reality that there's NO GOD

[Boss]

*I* haven't supported *my* premise?. It's not *my* premise, it's a scientific theory. And it is supported by mountains of mutually supportive evidence. If you don't understand it or the evidence for it, that's your problem, and nobody else's. And considering the lies and ridiculously false things you say about evolution, it is clear that you do not understand it.

Here's what I don't understand... all these pages of posts and you have yet to post any factual EVIDENCE to support your suppositions. You keep wanting to claim "we" have evidence but you're not presenting it for evaluation. You continue to attempt qualifying the evidence with elaborate and elegant descriptors like "mutually supportive" or even "empirical" but you haven't presented the evidence for anyone to make that evaluation. Then, you jump from that to a flurry of insults and denigration, as if I am somehow not worthy of even hearing your evidence.

 

[BreezeWood]

there we go again, the impossible because boss does not want to "believe" it possible so negates in their mind the physical evidence for the capability by the metaphysical presence to accomplish the very feat as displayed through metamorphosis to transform from one being to another -

What the fuck is wrong with you? Where did you read me saying something was impossible? I'm discussing what we have evidence for... not what is POSSIBLE!

All kinds of things are POSSIBLE! Mikiu Kaku asks his students to calculate the probability they will wake up in the morning on Jupiter! Now that would clearly seem to be an impossibility.... but his point is that as impossible as it seems, there IS a mathematical probability that can be calculated. It would take longer than the universe has existed but it's still possible.

So there is literally not ANYTHING that is impossible. Please just STOP trying to cajole everything I say into this same childish complaint and try to act your age. I'm really sorry that whatever "right-winged" thing I did has ruffled your feathers to the point that you can't resist teeing off on me every time you see me post something. I hope that you can someday get over it but I'm going to tell you like it is... you keep this stupidity up with me and I WILL add you to my ignore list. I'm out of patience with you and this pedantic whining.

.

All kinds of things are POSSIBLE! Mikiu Kaku asks his students to calculate the probability they will wake up in the morning on Jupiter!

. - you dwell on the childish, in your reply.

 

[alang1216]

Again, like I said earlier, the word "supernatural" is something we created to define things that can't be explained by physical nature. Over the years, the things we once thought were "supernatural" phenomenon have been explained and they forever leave the realm of "supernatural" because we then have an explanation. So to say something is "supernatural" simply means you currently don't have a physical explanation. It doesn't mean there isn't one... just that you don't currently have one. In a sense, is that not the exact same thing as relying on "God did it" as a placeholder for explanation?

No matter what the natural world turns out to be, if God created it he is not a part of it, hence supernatural. If he is part of it he has given up control and is subject to its limitations and is no longer all-powerful, omniscient, etc.

I've never heard anything so stupid in my life. God gave you the ability to turn your grunting noises into language so you could communicate with others, not so you could formulate goofy semantics arguments and be absurd.

Apparently he failed miserably. You have recycled the "God of the Gaps" argument, I hope you don't hurt yourself with your verbal contortions

 

[Avatar4321]

Has anyone posted any evidence of one species giving birth to another yet?

I don't want to miss it if you do. It would be absolutely fascinating

 

[sealybobo]

People are going to have to face the reality that there's no God. The odds of such developing out of thin space is nearly ZERO.

Sure, physics and chemistry takes some faith in the start but it most certainly explains everything since. Everything when using evidenced based science works together very well.

The first stars came around 12 or billion years ago to form the first galaxies.
Our star formed within our galaxy a little earlier then the earth as gravity had to develop the planets like earth. So earth about 4.3 billion years ago.
The first single celled life
The first muilti celled life
Land life
on up to humans is everything at odds with the 2,000 year old book. The book makes no sense and it is just a crock of shit.

That is reality.

Life formed in the oceans
The fossil record shows that man is only a few million years old as a "family" group and a few hundred thousand years old as a single species.
The sun came first in the case of our solar system
Then the planets
Then life
Then more advanced life in the oceans
Then life on land
Then after a few hundred million years humans come into the picture.

This is once again reality.

One is a fool if they attempt to put belief ahead of the facts and evidence.

Time to come to the conclusion that there probably isn't a god and you shouldn't force religion on other people...Those other people are more likely to be RIGHT.

Since the universe is much older than the earth and since the earth had no life on it when it was formed the odds are that life did not begin in the oceans or on the earth but originated elsewhere, most likely a much older sphere of existence of unknown origin..

Its not like there's just humans. The planet is teeming with many diverse life forms that can survive in environments that would kill many others.

The odds that life did not originate elsewhere, given the many ways life on this planet can adapt to extreme conditions, are very slim..

Correct. Life is first cooked up in a star that then blew up its contents to make our solar system

 

[hobelim]

People are going to have to face the reality that there's no God. The odds of such developing out of thin space is nearly ZERO.

Sure, physics and chemistry takes some faith in the start but it most certainly explains everything since. Everything when using evidenced based science works together very well.

The first stars came around 12 or billion years ago to form the first galaxies.
Our star formed within our galaxy a little earlier then the earth as gravity had to develop the planets like earth. So earth about 4.3 billion years ago.
The first single celled life
The first muilti celled life
Land life
on up to humans is everything at odds with the 2,000 year old book. The book makes no sense and it is just a crock of shit.

That is reality.

Life formed in the oceans
The fossil record shows that man is only a few million years old as a "family" group and a few hundred thousand years old as a single species.
The sun came first in the case of our solar system
Then the planets
Then life
Then more advanced life in the oceans
Then life on land
Then after a few hundred million years humans come into the picture.

This is once again reality.

One is a fool if they attempt to put belief ahead of the facts and evidence.

Time to come to the conclusion that there probably isn't a god and you shouldn't force religion on other people...Those other people are more likely to be RIGHT.

Since the universe is much older than the earth and since the earth had no life on it when it was formed the odds are that life did not begin in the oceans or on the earth but originated elsewhere, most likely a much older sphere of existence of unknown origin..

Its not like there's just humans. The planet is teeming with many diverse life forms that can survive in environments that would kill many others.

The odds that life did not originate elsewhere, given the many ways life on this planet can adapt to extreme conditions, are very slim..

Correct. Life is first cooked up in a star that then blew up its contents to make our solar system

Thats not what I said or meant. .

Its more likely that one or many stars that blew up eons ago also scattered across the universe the elements and building blocks of life that may have existed on any of its planets which could have passed through this solar system and landed here and taken root given the many tons of cosmic debris that has fallen on the earth every day since it was formed. The earth is 4 billion years old, the universe 14 billion years old.

Many solar systems could have been formed, developed complex life, and destroyed billions of years before the earth even cooled.

If the earth was destroyed by a large celestial object the oceans would be splattered throughout space and flash frozen into comets teeming with the elements of life that could travel in every direction for billions of years before landing on another planet that doesn't even exist yet.

 

[sealybobo]

People are going to have to face the reality that there's no God. The odds of such developing out of thin space is nearly ZERO.

Sure, physics and chemistry takes some faith in the start but it most certainly explains everything since. Everything when using evidenced based science works together very well.

The first stars came around 12 or billion years ago to form the first galaxies.
Our star formed within our galaxy a little earlier then the earth as gravity had to develop the planets like earth. So earth about 4.3 billion years ago.
The first single celled life
The first muilti celled life
Land life
on up to humans is everything at odds with the 2,000 year old book. The book makes no sense and it is just a crock of shit.

That is reality.

Life formed in the oceans
The fossil record shows that man is only a few million years old as a "family" group and a few hundred thousand years old as a single species.
The sun came first in the case of our solar system
Then the planets
Then life
Then more advanced life in the oceans
Then life on land
Then after a few hundred million years humans come into the picture.

This is once again reality.

One is a fool if they attempt to put belief ahead of the facts and evidence.

Time to come to the conclusion that there probably isn't a god and you shouldn't force religion on other people...Those other people are more likely to be RIGHT.

Since the universe is much older than the earth and since the earth had no life on it when it was formed the odds are that life did not begin in the oceans or on the earth but originated elsewhere, most likely a much older sphere of existence of unknown origin..

Its not like there's just humans. The planet is teeming with many diverse life forms that can survive in environments that would kill many others.

The odds that life did not originate elsewhere, given the many ways life on this planet can adapt to extreme conditions, are very slim..

Correct. Life is first cooked up in a star that then blew up its contents to make our solar system

Thats not what I said or meant. .

Its more likely that one or many stars that blew up eons ago also scattered across the universe the elements and building blocks of life that may have existed on any of its planets which could have passed through this solar system and landed here and taken root given the many tons of cosmic debris that has fallen on the earth every day since it was formed. The earth is 4 billion years old, the universe 14 billion years old.

Many solar systems could have been formed, developed complex life, and destroyed billions of years before the earth even cooled.

If the earth was destroyed by a large celestial object the oceans would be splattered throughout space and flash frozen into comets teeming with the elements of life that could travel in every direction for billions of years before landing on another planet that doesn't even exist yet.

Pretty much what I said.

 

[alang1216]

Has anyone posted any evidence of one species giving birth to another yet?

I don't want to miss it if you do. It would be absolutely fascinating

There is abundant evidence. One classic is Darwin's finches:

Darwin's finches are a classical example of an adaptive radiation. Their common ancestor arrived on the Galapagos about two million years ago. During the time that has passed the Darwin's finches have evolved into 15 recognized species differing in body size, beak shape, song and feeding behaviour.

 

[Boss]

Has anyone posted any evidence of one species giving birth to another yet?

I don't want to miss it if you do. It would be absolutely fascinating

There is abundant evidence. One classic is Darwin's finches:

Darwin's finches are a classical example of an adaptive radiation. Their common ancestor arrived on the Galapagos about two million years ago. During the time that has passed the Darwin's finches have evolved into 15 recognized species differing in body size, beak shape, song and feeding behaviour.

The finches are a great example of micro-evolution. There is no evidence for macro-evolution. Finches didn't evolve into ducks or seagulls.

 

[alang1216]

The finches are a great example of micro-evolution. There is no evidence for macro-evolution. Finches didn't evolve into ducks or seagulls.

You are incorrect, they are considered separate species, at least by biologists. They have different genes and don't interbreed allowing the differences to be inherited by subsequent generations.

 

[Avatar4321]

The finches are a great example of micro-evolution. There is no evidence for macro-evolution. Finches didn't evolve into ducks or seagulls.

You are incorrect, they are considered separate species, at least by biologists. They have different genes and don't interbreed allowing the differences to be inherited by subsequent generations.

But no frogs become say lizards? Just finches becoming different finches

 

[Uncensored2008]

Dude, you are just kind of making stuff up as you go. I was not taught by my schools or universities that way. I have two children...they are not taught that way. They are taught science in science class. If they want religious teaching, then I will have to send them to religious teaching. But anyone who says science and faith or religion are incimpatible is 100% correct, in that, while they may live alongside each other, there is no overlap. Faith and science are opposites.

No they're not.

I haven't seen you disprove anything I've posted. You run around calling it dogma and yet you won't answer the question of what dogma I've posted.

******CHUCKLE*****

Yes, they are opposites. And I would never attempt the folly of trying to disprove magical nonsense. That's part of the point of it being magical nonsense, and why magical thinkers like you wield it.

View attachment 153186

Point out to me where there's any 'magical nonsense' in my responses.

That should be quite the trick since I've not provided any 'magical nonsense' in my responses.

Still waiting for you to point out that 'religious dogma' you keep saying I'm guilty of promoting.

*****CHUCKLE*****
"Pantheism" is magical nonsense. It is also religious dogma. Why so shy? Be proud of your dogma, else you cheapen it yourself. or shed it, even better.

"Pantheism" is magical nonsense. It is also religious dogma. Why so shy? Be proud of your dogma, else you cheapen it yourself. or shed it, even better.

Gaia worship is magical nonsense, the religion of Stalinists with their global warming dogma. Be proud of your dogma, else you cheapen it yourself. or shed it, even better.

 

[Uncensored2008]

And what if they don't, will you put them in concentration camps for "wrong think?"

The obsession you Stalinists have with persecuting the religious is startling.

Hah...you attributed persecution to him out of nowhere, then used your madeup bullshit as evidence of a equally non-existent larger trend. Very "Rushy" of you. No really, some people have to practice little cons and tricks like those. You seem to be a natural.

Drooling Matty is well known,

What banned Stalinist retard were you?

Huh? Stalinist? Wha? I gotta say, i never knew that I should be so scared of Stalinists and commies until I came the this forum. So this place is the actual "basket", eh?

Well, those who promoted the same shit you do did slaughter 200 million captive people..

Matthew wants nothing less than to put yellow cross armbands on every hated Christian in the nation and move them off to forced labor camps. No word yet whether the DNC has adopted this as an official plank for the 2018 election, but they are at lease VERY sympathetic.

"Well, those who promoted the same shit you do did slaughter 200 million captive people.. "

This is so stupid. And the same people who promote th same shit you do owned slaves and were traitors who killed real Americans. And going a little further back, they roamed europe and committed genocide. I guess that makes you a genocidal-slaver-traitor, right? You are embarrassing yourself.

Actually, those who promote what I do FOUGHT and defeated you who held slaves.

You are abysmally ignorant, which is why you were so fertile a recruit as a Stalinist.

 

[alang1216]

The finches are a great example of micro-evolution. There is no evidence for macro-evolution. Finches didn't evolve into ducks or seagulls.

You are incorrect, they are considered separate species, at least by biologists. They have different genes and don't interbreed allowing the differences to be inherited by subsequent generations.

But no frogs become say lizards? Just finches becoming different finches

Sorry but the world/science doesn't confirm to your expectaions. How many changes must there be before you say the finches are no longer finches?

 

[hobelim]

Dude, you are just kind of making stuff up as you go. I was not taught by my schools or universities that way. I have two children...they are not taught that way. They are taught science in science class. If they want religious teaching, then I will have to send them to religious teaching. But anyone who says science and faith or religion are incimpatible is 100% correct, in that, while they may live alongside each other, there is no overlap. Faith and science are opposites.

No they're not.

I haven't seen you disprove anything I've posted. You run around calling it dogma and yet you won't answer the question of what dogma I've posted.

******CHUCKLE*****

Yes, they are opposites. And I would never attempt the folly of trying to disprove magical nonsense. That's part of the point of it being magical nonsense, and why magical thinkers like you wield it.

View attachment 153186

Point out to me where there's any 'magical nonsense' in my responses.

That should be quite the trick since I've not provided any 'magical nonsense' in my responses.

Still waiting for you to point out that 'religious dogma' you keep saying I'm guilty of promoting.

*****CHUCKLE*****
"Pantheism" is magical nonsense. It is also religious dogma. Why so shy? Be proud of your dogma, else you cheapen it yourself. or shed it, even better.

"Pantheism" is magical nonsense. It is also religious dogma. Why so shy? Be proud of your dogma, else you cheapen it yourself. or shed it, even better.

Gaia worship is magical nonsense, the religion of Stalinists with their global warming dogma. Be proud of your dogma, else you cheapen it yourself. or shed it, even better.

You have it backwards.

Stalinists deny global warming.. They are terra forming. A warmer planet would be beneficial in colder regions, increasing farming and productivity, oil and gas exports, and subsequently national power and wealth, by freeing up ports and regions for development that are presently frozen and blocked by ice.....

 

[Uncensored2008]

Given your constant attempts to misinform and create confusion about scientific theories and process, i think it's perfectly reasonable to assume you pantheistic dogma includes substituting your own magical thinking for scientific knowledge. I'm sure you would provide many examples of this, if given to a moment of honesty. No?

I'm not the one who believes that just because there's a 90% consensus among scientists for a theoretical model that can't stand up to the data collected and still believe that it's correct... That would be someone like you. Most people would call that...

...Wait for it...

...MAGIC and DOGMA

*****CHUCKLE*****

"I'm not the one who believes that just because there's a 90% consensus among scientists for a theoretical model that can't stand up to the data collected and still believe that it's correct... That would be someone like you."

That's not why I accept the dominant theories, not do i think they can all be called "facts". that's just you, being dishonest, as one would expect from a snake oil salesman. And you are also lying about accepted theories not standing up to the facts.... more embarrassing bullshit dogma that you have fooled yourself into believing is compelling.logic.

You "accept" the Gaia religion because it is party dogma, The party represents truth to you, "fact" is merely what the party utters at any given time. Fact today can be a lie tomorrow, if said fact no longer serves the goals of the party.

You know nothing of actual science, but you are a dedicated and obedient Stalinist.

 

[Uncensored2008]

[
"Seek out the witches and unbelievers so you can torture and sacrifice them on your almighty alter of scientific consensus! You don't care if the ice caps were supposed to be gone for... what?... a decade now?"

Let's unpack the stupidity here:

First of all, ya paranoid freak, nobody is suggesting anything of the sort. Stop trying to make yourself some sort of "martyr", when really you are just a cackling peddler of anti-scientific nonsense. Lending yourself faux martyr status doesn't suddenly make your bullshit, "true".

Secondly, not a single scientist claimed the ice caps would be gone by now, so your comment shows not only utter ignorance of the topic, but the fact that you know less than nothing about the topic. That's right, less than nothing. I.E., not only do you know nothing about the topic, the things you think you know are all wrong. Yes, you have net negative knowledge about the topic. In other words, a teacher would have to spend time simply correcting your dishonest, incorrect bullshit just to get you to the point where your knowledge of the topic is the same as an newborn baby. How embarrassing for you... and it's made even more embarrassing by your aggressiveness. "Aggressively stupid"... it's worse than stupid.

Ah, you are blatantly lying, how Stalinist of you...

{
the United Nations body that issued it.

Two years ago the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) issued a benchmark report that was claimed to incorporate the latest and most detailed research into the impact of global warming. A central claim was the world’s glaciers were melting so fast that those in the Himalayas could vanish by 2035.

In the past few days the scientists behind the warning have admitted that it was based on a news story in the New Scientist, a popular science journal, published eight years before the IPCC’s 2007 report.

Another Global Warming Lie Exposed – Himalayan Glaciers NOT Melting

Your religion is the most absurd cult to ever plague human kind.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Given your constant attempts to misinform and create confusion about scientific theories and process, i think it's perfectly reasonable to assume you pantheistic dogma includes substituting your own magical thinking for scientific knowledge. I'm sure you would provide many examples of this, if given to a moment of honesty. No?

I'm not the one who believes that just because there's a 90% consensus among scientists for a theoretical model that can't stand up to the data collected and still believe that it's correct... That would be someone like you. Most people would call that...

...Wait for it...

...MAGIC and DOGMA

*****CHUCKLE*****

"I'm not the one who believes that just because there's a 90% consensus among scientists for a theoretical model that can't stand up to the data collected and still believe that it's correct... That would be someone like you."

That's not why I accept the dominant theories, not do i think they can all be called "facts". that's just you, being dishonest, as one would expect from a snake oil salesman. And you are also lying about accepted theories not standing up to the facts.... more embarrassing bullshit dogma that you have fooled yourself into believing is compelling.logic.

View attachment 153313

Yes! Yes! Seek out the witches and unbelievers so you can torture and sacrifice them on your almighty alter of scientific consensus! You don't care if the ice caps were supposed to be gone for... what?... a decade now?,,, You have consensus and the almighty power of the consensus must prevail!

*****CHUCKLE*****

"Seek out the witches and unbelievers so you can torture and sacrifice them on your almighty alter of scientific consensus! You don't care if the ice caps were supposed to be gone for... what?... a decade now?"

Let's unpack the stupidity here:

First of all, ya paranoid freak, nobody is suggesting anything of the sort. Stop trying to make yourself some sort of "martyr", when really you are just a cackling peddler of anti-scientific nonsense. Lending yourself faux martyr status doesn't suddenly make your bullshit, "true".

Secondly, not a single scientist claimed the ice caps would be gone by now, so your comment shows not only utter ignorance of the topic, but the fact that you know less than nothing about the topic. That's right, less than nothing. I.E., not only do you know nothing about the topic, the things you think you know are all wrong. Yes, you have net negative knowledge about the topic. In other words, a teacher would have to spend time simply correcting your dishonest, incorrect bullshit just to get you to the point where your knowledge of the topic is the same as an newborn baby. How embarrassing for you... and it's made even more embarrassing by your aggressiveness. "Aggressively stupid"... it's worse than stupid.

I may be a tad aggressive but I'm not the one being aggressive and abusive. As for the ice caps being gone...



...One of your ^^^high priests^^^ proclaimed in 2009 that the ice caps were supposed to be gone in five years. Now that would have been 2014 that all those polar bears would have no habitat and here we are almost four years later. Did I miss something about how that global warming theory magically divined all of this? Maybe if you manipulate the data 'just so' the next time it won't blow up in your face.

*****CHUCKLE*****

The Stalinists must lie for their faith, it is their duty.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Again, like I said earlier, the word "supernatural" is something we created to define things that can't be explained by physical nature. Over the years, the things we once thought were "supernatural" phenomenon have been explained and they forever leave the realm of "supernatural" because we then have an explanation. So to say something is "supernatural" simply means you currently don't have a physical explanation. It doesn't mean there isn't one... just that you don't currently have one. In a sense, is that not the exact same thing as relying on "God did it" as a placeholder for explanation?

No matter what the natural world turns out to be, if God created it he is not a part of it, hence supernatural. If he is part of it he has given up control and is subject to its limitations and is no longer all-powerful, omniscient, etc.

I've never heard anything so stupid in my life. God gave you the ability to turn your grunting noises into language so you could communicate with others, not so you could formulate goofy semantics arguments and be absurd.

Apparently he failed miserably. You have recycled the "God of the Gaps" argument, I hope you don't hurt yourself with your verbal contortions

If that is the case, you should be able to easily refute his arguments.....

 

[Uncensored2008]

Has anyone posted any evidence of one species giving birth to another yet?

I don't want to miss it if you do. It would be absolutely fascinating

I think you know that isn't how it works. There is overwhelming evidence of transmigration of species, though this a process that occurs over thousands of generations, not a bear giving birth to a sheep.