| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Dennis" |
| Date: |
28 Sep 2007 10:58:10 PM |
| Object: |
Atheism Cannot Exist Part II |
Greetings,
Now that I have had your attention for the last few days attempting to
discuss God / No god, (Atheism Cannot Exist 9/26/2007 9:53 pm) I thought
you would enjoy another round.
The belief that God does exist should not be argued about, but rather
accepted or rejected. And likewise, the belief that God does not exist
should not be argued, but rather accepted or rejected also. The same rules
should apply to both sides in order for a true debate to happen.That is the
simplicity of the whole conversation. Acceptance / Rejection. No argument,
no slander, and no fights.
You see, if a person that rejects God is talking to me, I do not get mad. I
may retaliate if in fact they attack, but only in self defense. Ok, I may
strike out sometimes to get a discussion going, but seriously, why do you
that reject God get so angry at those of us who accept Him?
Your anger tells me that there are some issues in your lives that have led
to this rejection and anger associated with believers. Yes some will say
that this is psychobabble, but the reality of instincts come to light under
a perceived stressful situation.
It has been said that it takes more faith to not believe in God than it
takes to believe in Him. I for one would rather have a little faith in
Jesus, than a whole lot of faith in something that is totally false and
misleading.
As a point in the proof that God exist, could any of you non believers
explain to me how the Woodpecker came to be? No seriously, the woodpecker is
just one of the many creation examples that defy the evolution theory. If
you would like to know, I will gladly share with you in the near future.
I know that there are still those out there that will take this as an
opportunity to belittle and slander, but I am looking for those with
different beliefs than my own in order to have an intelligent, and at times
fun, conversation.
IHS,
Dennis
.
|
|
| User: "J Forbes" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism Cannot Exist Part II |
28 Sep 2007 11:24:15 PM |
|
|
<snip crossposting to see if you're even here>
Dennis wrote:
It has been said that it takes more faith to not believe in God than it
takes to believe in Him. I for one would rather have a little faith in
Jesus, than a whole lot of faith in something that is totally false and
misleading.
I don't have faith in anything. So there.
As a point in the proof that God exist, could any of you non believers
explain to me how the Woodpecker came to be? No seriously, the woodpecker is
just one of the many creation examples that defy the evolution theory. If
you would like to know, I will gladly share with you in the near future.
How about if you explain the theory of evolution? then we can judge
how well you understand it. My guess is that you are most likely
clueless about what it says.....
And then when we get that all squared away, you can explain the theory
of creation to us. We've had countless theists here babble on about
how the theory of evolution is wrong, yet none of them has even
attempted to explain how a "god" might have created life as we know
it. They can't even tell us what "god" is!
Jim
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dennis" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism Cannot Exist Part II |
28 Sep 2007 11:30:42 PM |
|
|
"J Forbes" <jforbnospam@selectric.org> wrote in message
news:1191039855.638567.57410@r29g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
<snip crossposting to see if you're even here>
Dennis wrote:
It has been said that it takes more faith to not believe in God than it
takes to believe in Him. I for one would rather have a little faith in
Jesus, than a whole lot of faith in something that is totally false and
misleading.
I don't have faith in anything. So there.
On the contrary, you have faith that you do not have faith.
As a point in the proof that God exist, could any of you non believers
explain to me how the Woodpecker came to be? No seriously, the woodpecker
is
just one of the many creation examples that defy the evolution theory. If
you would like to know, I will gladly share with you in the near future.
How about if you explain the theory of evolution? then we can judge
how well you understand it. My guess is that you are most likely
clueless about what it says.....
See, you are just attempting to side the discussion. Is that a sign that you
have no idea?
And then when we get that all squared away, you can explain the theory
of creation to us. We've had countless theists here babble on about
how the theory of evolution is wrong, yet none of them has even
attempted to explain how a "god" might have created life as we know
it. They can't even tell us what "god" is!
Jim
See my above statement.
IHS,
Dennis
.
|
|
|
| User: "Robibnikoff" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism Cannot Exist Part II |
29 Sep 2007 04:26:32 AM |
|
|
"Dennis" <dnospamvickers@fidnet.com> wrote in message
news:YO-dnUFRmvNpSWDbnZ2dnUVZ_rOpnZ2d@fidnet.com...
"J Forbes" <jforbnospam@selectric.org> wrote in message
news:1191039855.638567.57410@r29g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
<snip crossposting to see if you're even here>
Dennis wrote:
It has been said that it takes more faith to not believe in God than it
takes to believe in Him. I for one would rather have a little faith in
Jesus, than a whole lot of faith in something that is totally false and
misleading.
I don't have faith in anything. So there.
On the contrary, you have faith that you do not have faith.
Wrong.
--
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
BAAWA Knight!
#1557
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism Cannot Exist Part II |
29 Sep 2007 04:42:39 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 29 Sep 2007 05:26:32 -0400, "Robibnikoff"
<witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote:
"Dennis" <dnospamvickers@fidnet.com> wrote in message
news:YO-dnUFRmvNpSWDbnZ2dnUVZ_rOpnZ2d@fidnet.com...
"J Forbes" <jforbnospam@selectric.org> wrote in message
news:1191039855.638567.57410@r29g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
<snip crossposting to see if you're even here>
Dennis wrote:
It has been said that it takes more faith to not believe in God than it
takes to believe in Him. I for one would rather have a little faith in
Jesus, than a whole lot of faith in something that is totally false and
misleading.
I don't have faith in anything. So there.
On the contrary, you have faith that you do not have faith.
Wrong.
Which is Dennis Vickers' raison d'être.
He lives to be incorect.
So far, he is doing a sterling job of it.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism Cannot Exist Part II |
29 Sep 2007 11:20:47 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 29 Sep 2007 05:26:32 -0400, Robibnikoff wrote:
"Dennis" <dnospamvickers@fidnet.com> wrote in message
news:YO-dnUFRmvNpSWDbnZ2dnUVZ_rOpnZ2d@fidnet.com...
"J Forbes" <jforbnospam@selectric.org> wrote in message
news:1191039855.638567.57410@r29g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
<snip crossposting to see if you're even here>
Dennis wrote:
It has been said that it takes more faith to not believe in God than
it takes to believe in Him. I for one would rather have a little
faith in Jesus, than a whole lot of faith in something that is
totally false and misleading.
I don't have faith in anything. So there.
On the contrary, you have faith that you do not have faith.
Wrong.
What a concept, having faith you don't have faith.
Do you think the room spins when he does that?
--
Mark K. Bilbo a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
------------------------------------------------------------
"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace
alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing
it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary."
- H. L. Mencken
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism Cannot Exist Part II |
29 Sep 2007 07:53:09 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 29 Sep 2007 11:20:47 -0500, "Mark K. Bilbo"
<gmail@com.mkbilbo> wrote:
On Sat, 29 Sep 2007 05:26:32 -0400, Robibnikoff wrote:
"Dennis" <dnospamvickers@fidnet.com> wrote in message
news:YO-dnUFRmvNpSWDbnZ2dnUVZ_rOpnZ2d@fidnet.com...
"J Forbes" <jforbnospam@selectric.org> wrote in message
news:1191039855.638567.57410@r29g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
<snip crossposting to see if you're even here>
Dennis wrote:
It has been said that it takes more faith to not believe in God than
it takes to believe in Him. I for one would rather have a little
faith in Jesus, than a whole lot of faith in something that is
totally false and misleading.
I don't have faith in anything. So there.
On the contrary, you have faith that you do not have faith.
Wrong.
What a concept, having faith you don't have faith.
Do you think the room spins when he does that?
Only until the psych nurse tightens the straps on Dennis's pyjamas.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism Cannot Exist Part II |
02 Oct 2007 11:57:34 AM |
|
|
On 30 Sep., 02:53, Michael Gray <mikeg...@newsguy.com> wrote:
On Sat, 29 Sep 2007 11:20:47 -0500, "Mark K. Bilbo"
<gm...@com.mkbilbo> wrote:
On Sat, 29 Sep 2007 05:26:32 -0400, Robibnikoff wrote:
"Dennis" <dnospamvick...@fidnet.com> wrote in message
news:YO-dnUFRmvNpSWDbnZ2dnUVZ_rOpnZ2d@fidnet.com...
"J Forbes" <jforbnos...@selectric.org> wrote in message
news:1191039855.638567.57410@r29g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
<snip crossposting to see if you're even here>
Dennis wrote:
It has been said that it takes more faith to not believe in God than
it takes to believe in Him. I for one would rather have a little
faith in Jesus, than a whole lot of faith in something that is
totally false and misleading.
I don't have faith in anything. So there.
On the contrary, you have faith that you do not have faith.
Wrong.
What a concept, having faith you don't have faith.
Do you think the room spins when he does that?
Only until the psych nurse tightens the straps on Dennis's pyjamas.- Skju=
l tekst i anf=F8rselstegn -
- Vis tekst i anf=F8rselstegn -
I bet he loves it when she does that.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bill M" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism Cannot Exist Part II |
02 Oct 2007 04:17:19 PM |
|
|
<gudloos@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1191344254.994536.326580@22g2000hsm.googlegroups.com...
On 30 Sep., 02:53, Michael Gray <mikeg...@newsguy.com> wrote:
On Sat, 29 Sep 2007 11:20:47 -0500, "Mark K. Bilbo"
<gm...@com.mkbilbo> wrote:
On Sat, 29 Sep 2007 05:26:32 -0400, Robibnikoff wrote:
"Dennis" <dnospamvick...@fidnet.com> wrote in message
news:YO-dnUFRmvNpSWDbnZ2dnUVZ_rOpnZ2d@fidnet.com...
"J Forbes" <jforbnos...@selectric.org> wrote in message
news:1191039855.638567.57410@r29g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
<snip crossposting to see if you're even here>
Dennis wrote:
It has been said that it takes more faith to not believe in God than
it takes to believe in Him. I for one would rather have a little
faith in Jesus, than a whole lot of faith in something that is
totally false and misleading.
Atheism is the lack of belief in gods.
There is NO OBJECTIVE VERIFIABLE EVIDENCE that any real gods actually exist.
There is even stronger evidence that NO GODS exist
except in the imaginations of man.
The god believers claim that god created the world and everything in it. He
is all loving, all caring and all powerful creator of man in his image.
Because the world is so magnificent and complex it had to have a creator. By
this same logic, god has to be even more powerful and complex and would have
to have a creator. Complexity in no way is proof or evidence of a god
creator it is only evidence of complexity.
Supposedly man after he dies lives on in gods eternal heaven in eternal
happiness.
If this is true, why did he create so much sin and punishment on Earth? Why
did he create Hell? Why not create a world with men that are motivated to be
all caring and loving beings, just like him, with no desire to be selfish,
greedy and mean?
Religious fanatics claim that man has chosen to be evil because of his 'free
will'. This is totally specious. 'Free will' does not imply or require the
existence of evil conduct.
free will n. 1. The ability or discretion to choose; free choice: chose to
remain behind of my own free will. 2. The power, attributed especially to
human beings, of making free choices that are unconstrained by external
circumstances or by an agency such as fate or divine will.
A good benevolent god could have created man as a loving caring creature
with free will but without any desire or ability to commit evil.
He already created other limitations on man's 'free will'.
He created hunger pains to force man to eat and drink, suffocation panic to
force man to breathe, and a powerful sex drive to force man to procreate.
(Frequently in excess of mans ability to feed and care for his creations!)
Why create greed and selfishness which encourages man to steel, lie,
subjugate and even kill other men?
This is supposedly to keep man in line and force him to follow god's wishes
and commands. This is characteristic of a dictator and slave master not the
characteristics of a loving god.
Why does this all powerful creator, all loving and caring intelligent
designer, create Plagues, Tsunamis, Tornadoes, Volcanic Eruptions, Floods,
Wars, Earth Quakes, Cancers and hundreds of debilitating diseases and
serious body malfunctions? There are 12,000 known diseases that affect and
punish mankind indiscriminately. Why does he permit millions of both young
and old to starve to death or die of miserable diseases? Why punish millions
of INNOCENT CHILDREN in this horrible way?
Why does this all powerful and caring god permit totally "innocent children"
to die at birth? Or worse, be born lacking eyesight, a fully developed
brain, deaf and dumb, missing limbs etc.? Why are some born idiots and
others with super intelligence? Why are some born into wealth and others
pauper poor? Why are his human creations designed to deteriorate into a
miserable and devastating old age regardless of their religious affiliation?
God supposedly created the world like it is to punish man for Adam and Eve's
'original sin'. Why does he also punish supposedly innocent animals with
thousands of diseases, birth defects, starvation and to be eaten alive by
other animals?
Why did this all powerful and loving creator create things like sharks,
jelly fish, octopus, lions, tigers, rhinoceros, Wolves, poisonous snakes,
stinging and poisonous insects, poisonous plants etc.? Why did this caring
benevolent god create animals (including man) that need to painfully kill
and eat other animals to survive?
World War I claimed 9,000,000 lives of people of many religious faiths.
World II indiscriminately claimed over 20,000,000 lives of people of all
ages and religious faiths, plus a vast destruction of property and more
millions maimed for life.
The recent Asian Tsunami has claimed the lives of 200,000 men, women and
children of all religious persuasions. Over 100,000 of these were totally
INNOCENT children!
There were three major epidemics of the Bubonic Plaque - in the 6th, 14th.
and 17th centuries. The death toll was over 137 million men, women and
totally innocent children.
The influenza of 1918-1919 killed at least 25 million men, women and
innocent children indiscriminately.
Diseases like malaria, AIDS, tuberculosis, etc. maim and kill millions
indiscriminately every year. More millions die of starvation and
malnutrition.
These indiscriminately afflicted the young and old, atheists and those of
all religious persuasions.
Meanwhile MAN, not god, has developed defenses and cures for hundreds of
serious diseases. Man has learned to create shelter, heat and cooling,
purify water, world wide electronic communications, power and transportation
systems including flying through the air.
Man has created a wonderful medical and drug system and improved housing and
food production. The result of MAN'S inventiveness has
DOUBLED the average life span. None of this was created by any gods.
Perhaps your loving and caring god is actually a cruel, heartless, mean and
torturing tyrant. If he treats us so cruelly during life, why do you think
he will let us enjoy peace and eternal happiness in his Heaven? And why does
he keep all this a secret by preventing communication with our dead parents,
siblings and friends? (Or this god?)
There are thousands of religious and god beliefs but NO OJECTIVE VERIFIABLE
EVIDENCE for the actual existence of ANY of these gods. ALL god beliefs are
based on the unsubstantiated 'opinions' of errant men.
If there is a god that created the Universe, he is obviously not an
all-caring and benevolent god. Nor is he an "Intelligent Designer". The
objective evidence is if there is a god creator, he has NO concern about the
welfare of the creatures on Earth.
The objective evidence is that no gods created man but quite the opposite;
that man created gods!
I challenge god believers to supply ANY objective verifiable evidence that
their god actually exists except in their over active imaginations.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "J Forbes" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism Cannot Exist Part II |
29 Sep 2007 12:02:44 AM |
|
|
Dennis wrote:
"J Forbes" <jforbnospam@selectric.org> wrote in message
news:1191039855.638567.57410@r29g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
<snip crossposting to see if you're even here>
Dennis wrote:
It has been said that it takes more faith to not believe in God than it
takes to believe in Him. I for one would rather have a little faith in
Jesus, than a whole lot of faith in something that is totally false and
misleading.
I don't have faith in anything. So there.
On the contrary, you have faith that you do not have faith.
No, that would be having faith....which I don't.....
As a point in the proof that God exist, could any of you non believers
explain to me how the Woodpecker came to be? No seriously, the woodpecker
is
just one of the many creation examples that defy the evolution theory. If
you would like to know, I will gladly share with you in the near future.
How about if you explain the theory of evolution? then we can judge
how well you understand it. My guess is that you are most likely
clueless about what it says.....
See, you are just attempting to side the discussion. Is that a sign that you
have no idea?
You said the woodpecker is an example that defies the evolution
theory. I don't believe you, and so I asked you to explain evolution
theory to see if you know enough about evolution theory to be able to
tell whether or not the theory explains the woodpecker. You won't
even try....you're the one who has no idea. You are welcome to prove
me wrong, by explaining the theory of evolution.
And then when we get that all squared away, you can explain the theory
of creation to us. We've had countless theists here babble on about
how the theory of evolution is wrong, yet none of them has even
attempted to explain how a "god" might have created life as we know
it. They can't even tell us what "god" is!
Jim
See my above statement.
So I guess you're just full of crap, eh? not surprising either...
Jim
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism Cannot Exist Part II |
29 Sep 2007 11:20:05 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 28 Sep 2007 23:30:42 -0500, Dennis wrote:
"J Forbes" <jforbnospam@selectric.org> wrote in message
news:1191039855.638567.57410@r29g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
<snip crossposting to see if you're even here>
Dennis wrote:
It has been said that it takes more faith to not believe in God than
it takes to believe in Him. I for one would rather have a little faith
in Jesus, than a whole lot of faith in something that is totally false
and misleading.
I don't have faith in anything. So there.
On the contrary, you have faith that you do not have faith.
As a point in the proof that God exist, could any of you non believers
explain to me how the Woodpecker came to be? No seriously, the
woodpecker is
just one of the many creation examples that defy the evolution theory.
If you would like to know, I will gladly share with you in the near
future.
How about if you explain the theory of evolution? then we can judge
how well you understand it. My guess is that you are most likely
clueless about what it says.....
See, you are just attempting to side the discussion. Is that a sign that
you have no idea?
No, it was a pretty simple idea that you explain what you *think* the
theory is.
I'd be rather entertained watching you attempt it. To date, after all
these years, I have not yet found *one* person who both understood and
rejected the ToE.
Only people rejecting a strawman version...
--
Mark K. Bilbo a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
------------------------------------------------------------
"Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism,
because it is a merger of State and corporate power."
- Mussolini
.
|
|
|
| User: "Free Lunch" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism Cannot Exist Part II |
29 Sep 2007 11:45:07 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 29 Sep 2007 11:20:05 -0500, in alt.atheism
"Mark K. Bilbo" <gmail@com.mkbilbo> wrote in
<I5adnZbv8Peo5mPbnZ2dnUVZ_gidnZ2d@giganews.com>:
On Fri, 28 Sep 2007 23:30:42 -0500, Dennis wrote:
"J Forbes" <jforbnospam@selectric.org> wrote in message
news:1191039855.638567.57410@r29g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
<snip crossposting to see if you're even here>
Dennis wrote:
It has been said that it takes more faith to not believe in God than
it takes to believe in Him. I for one would rather have a little faith
in Jesus, than a whole lot of faith in something that is totally false
and misleading.
I don't have faith in anything. So there.
On the contrary, you have faith that you do not have faith.
As a point in the proof that God exist, could any of you non believers
explain to me how the Woodpecker came to be? No seriously, the
woodpecker is
just one of the many creation examples that defy the evolution theory.
If you would like to know, I will gladly share with you in the near
future.
How about if you explain the theory of evolution? then we can judge
how well you understand it. My guess is that you are most likely
clueless about what it says.....
See, you are just attempting to side the discussion. Is that a sign that
you have no idea?
No, it was a pretty simple idea that you explain what you *think* the
theory is.
I'd be rather entertained watching you attempt it. To date, after all
these years, I have not yet found *one* person who both understood and
rejected the ToE.
Only people rejecting a strawman version...
There are a few people who almost certainly understand the theory of
creation and reject it for religious, political or monetary reasons. I
don't think that the people at the Discovery Institute, Creation
Research Society, Institute for Creation Research, Answers in Genesis,
or other such dishonest enterprises are really as ignorant of science as
they pretend to be. They know they are lying and enjoy the power, money
and prestige (in certain religious circles) that they get from telling
these lies about science.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism Cannot Exist Part II |
29 Sep 2007 01:38:26 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 29 Sep 2007 11:45:07 -0500, Free Lunch wrote:
There are a few people who almost certainly understand the theory of
creation and reject it for religious, political or monetary reasons. I
don't think that the people at the Discovery Institute, Creation
Research Society, Institute for Creation Research, Answers in Genesis,
or other such dishonest enterprises are really as ignorant of science as
they pretend to be. They know they are lying and enjoy the power, money
and prestige (in certain religious circles) that they get from telling
these lies about science.
I seriously doubt any are thinking, "Of course the theory is correct but
I'm making a lotta money" or anything like that. I would hazard the most
dishonest among them are aware they don't actually know the subject but
don't care. That is, they are willfully ignorant because they have
incentive to be so.
While most of the "leadership" (such as it is) behaves in ways that show
they are aware (at whatever level) that they are full of *****, I doubt
any of them have put any serious effort into understanding the science.
Why would they? They have gullible followers who wouldn't know "science"
if you beat them with a chemistry set...
--
Mark K. Bilbo a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
------------------------------------------------------------
"Warned you we tried! Listen you did not! Now screwed
we will all be!"
http://www.sequentialpictures.com/moviestarwarsepisode3.html
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Olrik" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism Cannot Exist Part II |
29 Sep 2007 12:05:22 AM |
|
|
On Sep 29, 12:30 am, "Dennis" <dnospamvick...@fidnet.com> wrote:
"J Forbes" <jforbnos...@selectric.org> wrote in message
news:1191039855.638567.57410@r29g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
<snip crossposting to see if you're even here>
Dennis wrote:
It has been said that it takes more faith to not believe in God than it
takes to believe in Him. I for one would rather have a little faith in
Jesus, than a whole lot of faith in something that is totally false and
misleading.
I don't have faith in anything. So there.
On the contrary, you have faith that you do not have faith.
That kind of argument will get you nowhere. You abuse and misuse the
word "faith".
Olrik
<snip>
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Doc Smartass" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism Cannot Exist Part II |
29 Sep 2007 04:16:37 PM |
|
|
"Dennis" <dnospamvickers@fidnet.com> wrote in
news:ZJidnTWOIfnPUGDbnZ2dnUVZ_saknZ2d@fidnet.com:
Subject: Atheism Cannot Exist Part II
*KICK* I still don't need your permission, boy.
--
Doc Smartass, BAAWA Knight of Heckling
aa # 1939
No one can terrorize a whole nation, unless we are all his accomplices.
--Edward R. Murrow
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Steve O" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism Cannot Exist Part II |
29 Sep 2007 03:43:18 AM |
|
|
"Dennis" <dnospamvickers@fidnet.com> wrote in message
news:ZJidnTWOIfnPUGDbnZ2dnUVZ_saknZ2d@fidnet.com...
As a point in the proof that God exist, could any of you non believers
explain to me how the Woodpecker came to be? No seriously, the woodpecker
is just one of the many creation examples that defy the evolution theory.
Actually, the woodpecker is a good example OF evolution theory.
All you need to do is to take a little time to understand why.
--
Steve O
a.a. #2240 (Apatheist Chapter)
B.A.A.W.A.
Convicted by Earthquack
"The only problem with Baptists is that they don't hold them underwater long
enough."
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dennis" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism Cannot Exist Part II |
29 Sep 2007 04:15:39 AM |
|
|
"Steve O" <hooray!@nospamhere.com> wrote in message
news:5m6hh7Fbte65U1@mid.individual.net...
"Dennis" <dnospamvickers@fidnet.com> wrote in message
news:ZJidnTWOIfnPUGDbnZ2dnUVZ_saknZ2d@fidnet.com...
As a point in the proof that God exist, could any of you non believers
explain to me how the Woodpecker came to be? No seriously, the woodpecker
is just one of the many creation examples that defy the evolution theory.
Actually, the woodpecker is a good example OF evolution theory.
All you need to do is to take a little time to understand why.
Did you read the summary? Apparantly not, for the first woodpecker would
have died, ending it's evolution cycle.
--
Steve O
a.a. #2240 (Apatheist Chapter)
B.A.A.W.A.
Convicted by Earthquack
I thought I would change your quote especially for you.
"The only problem with Baptists is that I am not one."
.
|
|
|
| User: "Steve O" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism Cannot Exist Part II |
29 Sep 2007 06:35:36 AM |
|
|
"Dennis" <dnospamvickers@fidnet.com> wrote in message
news:gKadnbarf5chimPbnZ2dnUVZ_vOlnZ2d@fidnet.com...
"Steve O" <hooray!@nospamhere.com> wrote in message
news:5m6hh7Fbte65U1@mid.individual.net...
"Dennis" <dnospamvickers@fidnet.com> wrote in message
news:ZJidnTWOIfnPUGDbnZ2dnUVZ_saknZ2d@fidnet.com...
As a point in the proof that God exist, could any of you non believers
explain to me how the Woodpecker came to be? No seriously, the
woodpecker is just one of the many creation examples that defy the
evolution theory.
Actually, the woodpecker is a good example OF evolution theory.
All you need to do is to take a little time to understand why.
Did you read the summary? Apparantly not, for the first woodpecker would
have died, ending it's evolution cycle.
I have absolutely no idea why you would even imagine why such a thing could
happen, nor what you mean by "the evolution cycle".
What is it that gave you the impression that evolution is a cycle at all?
Do you imagine that animals evolve to a zenith, the devolve back to their
original state?
If not, then what the hell are you on about?
Neither do I have any idea what you mean by the term "the first woodpecker".
The statement is meaningless.
Do you think they just blinked into existence or something?
Is it too hard for you to understand that the remarkable resilience of the
woodpeckers skull developed over time?
Or did you somehow imagine that an early form of the woodpecker started
hammering away at the tree like its modern counterpart, bashing it's brains
in as a result of the process?
I suggest you get yourself a decent book on the subject
I'd recommend "Climbing Mount Improbable" by Dawkins as a primer.
It might give you a better idea of how animals develop.
--
Steve O
a.a. #2240 (Apatheist Chapter)
B.A.A.W.A.
Convicted by Earthquack
"The only problem with Baptists is that they don't hold them underwater long
enough."
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Chief Instigator" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism Cannot Exist Part II |
29 Sep 2007 12:24:37 PM |
|
|
"Steve O" <hooray!@nospamhere.com> writes:
"Dennis" <dnospamvickers@fidnet.com> wrote in message
news:gKadnbarf5chimPbnZ2dnUVZ_vOlnZ2d@fidnet.com...
"Steve O" <hooray!@nospamhere.com> wrote in message
news:5m6hh7Fbte65U1@mid.individual.net...
"Dennis" <dnospamvickers@fidnet.com> wrote in message
news:ZJidnTWOIfnPUGDbnZ2dnUVZ_saknZ2d@fidnet.com...
As a point in the proof that God exist, could any of you non believers
explain to me how the Woodpecker came to be? No seriously, the
woodpecker is just one of the many creation examples that defy the
evolution theory.
Actually, the woodpecker is a good example OF evolution theory.
All you need to do is to take a little time to understand why.
Did you read the summary? Apparantly not, for the first woodpecker would
have died, ending it's evolution cycle.
I have absolutely no idea why you would even imagine why such a thing could
happen, nor what you mean by "the evolution cycle".
What is it that gave you the impression that evolution is a cycle at all?
Do you imagine that animals evolve to a zenith, the devolve back to their
original state?
If not, then what the hell are you on about?
Neither do I have any idea what you mean by the term "the first woodpecker".
The statement is meaningless.
Do you think they just blinked into existence or something?
Is it too hard for you to understand that the remarkable resilience of the
woodpeckers skull developed over time?
Or did you somehow imagine that an early form of the woodpecker started
hammering away at the tree like its modern counterpart, bashing it's brains
in as a result of the process?
I suggest you get yourself a decent book on the subject
I'd recommend "Climbing Mount Improbable" by Dawkins as a primer.
It might give you a better idea of how animals develop.
That's possible, but since you're trying to explain it to Dennis...the heat
death of the universe will have occurred long before Dennis gets near grasping
the concept.
--
Patrick "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (patrick@io.com) Houston, Texas
chiefinstigator.us.tt/aeros.php (TCI's 2006-07 Houston Aeros) AA#2273
LAST GAME: San Antonio 4, Houston 2 (April 15)
NEXT GAME: Saturday, October 6 vs. Chicago, 7:35
.
|
|
|
| User: "Steve O" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism Cannot Exist Part II |
29 Sep 2007 12:35:55 PM |
|
|
"The Chief Instigator" <patrick@io.com> wrote in message
news:szkr6khgzai.fsf@eris.io.com...
"Steve O" <hooray!@nospamhere.com> writes:
"Dennis" <dnospamvickers@fidnet.com> wrote in message
news:gKadnbarf5chimPbnZ2dnUVZ_vOlnZ2d@fidnet.com...
"Steve O" <hooray!@nospamhere.com> wrote in message
news:5m6hh7Fbte65U1@mid.individual.net...
"Dennis" <dnospamvickers@fidnet.com> wrote in message
news:ZJidnTWOIfnPUGDbnZ2dnUVZ_saknZ2d@fidnet.com...
As a point in the proof that God exist, could any of you non believers
explain to me how the Woodpecker came to be? No seriously, the
woodpecker is just one of the many creation examples that defy the
evolution theory.
Actually, the woodpecker is a good example OF evolution theory.
All you need to do is to take a little time to understand why.
Did you read the summary? Apparantly not, for the first woodpecker would
have died, ending it's evolution cycle.
I have absolutely no idea why you would even imagine why such a thing
could
happen, nor what you mean by "the evolution cycle".
What is it that gave you the impression that evolution is a cycle at all?
Do you imagine that animals evolve to a zenith, the devolve back to their
original state?
If not, then what the hell are you on about?
Neither do I have any idea what you mean by the term "the first
woodpecker".
The statement is meaningless.
Do you think they just blinked into existence or something?
Is it too hard for you to understand that the remarkable resilience of the
woodpeckers skull developed over time?
Or did you somehow imagine that an early form of the woodpecker started
hammering away at the tree like its modern counterpart, bashing it's
brains
in as a result of the process?
I suggest you get yourself a decent book on the subject
I'd recommend "Climbing Mount Improbable" by Dawkins as a primer.
It might give you a better idea of how animals develop.
That's possible, but since you're trying to explain it to Dennis...the
heat
death of the universe will have occurred long before Dennis gets near
grasping
the concept.
It's strange- he's quite happy to cling tenaciously to any old guff produced
by the cretinist crowd- he probably even makes an effort to understand it.
So what's stopping him from understanding the REAL science?
Oh!
Of course.
The mind virus.
--
Steve O
a.a. #2240 (Apatheist Chapter)
B.A.A.W.A.
Convicted by Earthquack
"The only problem with Baptists is that they don't hold them underwater long
enough."
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism Cannot Exist Part II |
29 Sep 2007 02:13:40 PM |
|
|
In article <gKadnbarf5chimPbnZ2dnUVZ_vOlnZ2d@fidnet.com>,
"Dennis" <dnospamvickers@fidnet.com> wrote:
"Steve O" <hooray!@nospamhere.com> wrote in message
news:5m6hh7Fbte65U1@mid.individual.net...
"Dennis" <dnospamvickers@fidnet.com> wrote in message
news:ZJidnTWOIfnPUGDbnZ2dnUVZ_saknZ2d@fidnet.com...
Actually, the woodpecker is a good example OF evolution theory.
All you need to do is to take a little time to understand why.
Did you read the summary? Apparantly not, for the first woodpecker would
have died, ending it's evolution cycle.
In slowly changing speciations, such as evolution expects, how can one
distinguish "the first woodpecker" from the last of those "not yet quite
woodpecker" evolutionary predecessors?
No scientist claims such ability.
It it quite likely that the last of the woodpecker forerunners existed
well after the "first true woodpeckers" appeared, or even that both
still exist.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism Cannot Exist Part II |
29 Sep 2007 11:24:45 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 29 Sep 2007 04:15:39 -0500, Dennis wrote:
"Steve O" <hooray!@nospamhere.com> wrote in message
news:5m6hh7Fbte65U1@mid.individual.net...
"Dennis" <dnospamvickers@fidnet.com> wrote in message
news:ZJidnTWOIfnPUGDbnZ2dnUVZ_saknZ2d@fidnet.com...
As a point in the proof that God exist, could any of you non believers
explain to me how the Woodpecker came to be? No seriously, the
woodpecker is just one of the many creation examples that defy the
evolution theory.
Actually, the woodpecker is a good example OF evolution theory. All you
need to do is to take a little time to understand why.
Did you read the summary? Apparantly not, for the first woodpecker would
have died, ending it's evolution cycle.
In short, you don't understand the theory.
(Imagine my surprise)
--
Mark K. Bilbo a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
------------------------------------------------------------
"Oh Log Cabin, full of taste, my stomach is with thee.
Blessed are three among syrups..."
- Homer
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Frank Mayhar" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism Cannot Exist Part II |
29 Sep 2007 02:03:28 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 29 Sep 2007 04:15:39 -0500, Dennis wrote:
"Steve O" <hooray!@nospamhere.com> wrote in message
news:5m6hh7Fbte65U1@mid.individual.net...
"Dennis" <dnospamvickers@fidnet.com> wrote in message
news:ZJidnTWOIfnPUGDbnZ2dnUVZ_saknZ2d@fidnet.com...
As a point in the proof that God exist, could any of you non believers
explain to me how the Woodpecker came to be? No seriously, the
woodpecker is just one of the many creation examples that defy the
evolution theory.
Actually, the woodpecker is a good example OF evolution theory. All you
need to do is to take a little time to understand why.
Did you read the summary? Apparantly not, for the first woodpecker would
have died, ending it's evolution cycle.
Which statement only goes to show your amazing and utter ignorance of
what evolution is and how it works.
Much smarter (not to mention more well-informed) people than you have
been picking holes in evolution for a century and a half, now. Not only
has it held up just fine, but there is more support for it than ever. So
much so that the entire study of biology more or less rests on it.
But you just ignore that, instead believing what your wonderful snake-oil
salesmen are feeding you.
"The only problem with Baptists is that I am not one."
You're a Baptist? Figures.
--
Frank Mayhar frank@exit.com http://www.exit.com/
Exit Consulting http://www.gpsclock.com/
http://www.exit.com/blog/frank/
http://www.zazzle.com/fmayhar*
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "The Rev Dr. Hugh Jarse NLAHN." |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism Cannot Exist Part II |
29 Sep 2007 05:14:14 AM |
|
|
On Sep 29, 10:15 am, "Dennis" <dnospamvick...@fidnet.com> wrote:
"Steve O" <hoor...@nospamhere.com> wrote in message
news:5m6hh7Fbte65U1@mid.individual.net...
"Dennis" <dnospamvick...@fidnet.com> wrote in message
news:ZJidnTWOIfnPUGDbnZ2dnUVZ_saknZ2d@fidnet.com...
As a point in the proof that God exist, could any of you non believers
explain to me how the Woodpecker came to be? No seriously, the woodpecker
is just one of the many creation examples that defy the evolution theory.
Actually, the woodpecker is a good example OF evolution theory.
All you need to do is to take a little time to understand why.
Did you read the summary? Apparantly not, for the first woodpecker would
have died, ending it's evolution cycle.
--
Steve O
a.a. #2240 (Apatheist Chapter)
B.A.A.W.A.
Convicted by Earthquack
I thought I would change your quote especially for you.
"The only problem with Baptists is that they won't keep their own counsel."
Fixed.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Vic" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism Cannot Exist Part II |
29 Sep 2007 09:24:53 AM |
|
|
One fine day in alt.atheism, "Dennis" <dnospamvickers@fidnet.com> bloodied
us up with this:
Actually, the woodpecker is a good example OF evolution theory.
All you need to do is to take a little time to understand why.
Did you read the summary? Apparantly not, for the first woodpecker would
have died, ending it's evolution cycle.
Just as the first speaker of French would have tied his tongue in knots.
--
Uncle Vic
aa Atheist #2011
Supervisor, EAC Department of little adhesive-backed "L" shaped
chrome-plastic doo-dads to add feet to Jesus fish department.
Convicted by Earthquack.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism Cannot Exist Part II |
29 Sep 2007 04:44:47 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 29 Sep 2007 09:43:18 +0100, "Steve O" <hooray!@nospamhere.com>
wrote:
"Dennis" <dnospamvickers@fidnet.com> wrote in message
news:ZJidnTWOIfnPUGDbnZ2dnUVZ_saknZ2d@fidnet.com...
As a point in the proof that God exist, could any of you non believers
explain to me how the Woodpecker came to be? No seriously, the woodpecker
is just one of the many creation examples that defy the evolution theory.
Actually, the woodpecker is a good example OF evolution theory.
All you need to do is to take a little time to understand why.
"Understanding" is strictly forbidden in Dennis the Menaces' cult .
.
|
|
|
| User: "Steve O" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism Cannot Exist Part II |
29 Sep 2007 06:39:38 AM |
|
|
"Michael Gray" <mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:mi7sf35rjb50gssqmkep34nd7uvu1tv773@4ax.com...
On Sat, 29 Sep 2007 09:43:18 +0100, "Steve O" <hooray!@nospamhere.com>
wrote:
"Dennis" <dnospamvickers@fidnet.com> wrote in message
news:ZJidnTWOIfnPUGDbnZ2dnUVZ_saknZ2d@fidnet.com...
As a point in the proof that God exist, could any of you non believers
explain to me how the Woodpecker came to be? No seriously, the
woodpecker
is just one of the many creation examples that defy the evolution
theory.
Actually, the woodpecker is a good example OF evolution theory.
All you need to do is to take a little time to understand why.
"Understanding" is strictly forbidden in Dennis the Menaces' cult .
That much is obvious.
I have no idea why he is so prepared to display such wilful ignorance on the
subject of evolution.
Personally, if I knew as little as he does about it I'd be afraid to speak
in an open forum like this for fear of making a fool of myself.
--
Steve O
a.a. #2240 (Apatheist Chapter)
B.A.A.W.A.
Convicted by Earthquack
"The only problem with Baptists is that they don't hold them underwater long
enough."
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Baker" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism Cannot Exist Part II |
29 Sep 2007 09:05:33 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 29 Sep 2007 12:39:38 +0100, "Steve O" <hooray!@nospamhere.com>
wrote:
"Michael Gray" <mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:mi7sf35rjb50gssqmkep34nd7uvu1tv773@4ax.com...
On Sat, 29 Sep 2007 09:43:18 +0100, "Steve O" <hooray!@nospamhere.com>
wrote:
"Dennis" <dnospamvickers@fidnet.com> wrote in message
news:ZJidnTWOIfnPUGDbnZ2dnUVZ_saknZ2d@fidnet.com...
As a point in the proof that God exist, could any of you non believers
explain to me how the Woodpecker came to be? No seriously, the
woodpecker
is just one of the many creation examples that defy the evolution
theory.
Actually, the woodpecker is a good example OF evolution theory.
All you need to do is to take a little time to understand why.
"Understanding" is strictly forbidden in Dennis the Menaces' cult .
That much is obvious.
I have no idea why he is so prepared to display such wilful ignorance on the
subject of evolution.
Personally, if I knew as little as he does about it I'd be afraid to speak
in an open forum like this for fear of making a fool of myself.
That's just it. Creationists don't *know* they're ignorant. They think
they know more about evolution than all the biologists in the world
put together. And all without ever so much as opening a book on the
subject (unless you count cretinist propaganda like 'Darwin's Black
Box' as a book on evolution).
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Lee me@localhost" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism Cannot Exist Part II |
29 Sep 2007 06:09:21 AM |
|
|
"Dennis" <dnospamvickers@fidnet.com> wrote in message
news:ZJidnTWOIfnPUGDbnZ2dnUVZ_saknZ2d@fidnet.com...
Greetings,
<Snipped stuff>
As a point in the proof that God exist, could any of you non believers
explain to me how the Woodpecker came to be? No seriously, the woodpecker
is just one of the many creation examples that defy the evolution theory.
If you would like to know, I will gladly share with you in the near
future.
That creationist trojan claim was apparently locked in the stable back in
2003:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/woodpecker/woodpecker.html
I know that there are still those out there that will take this as an
opportunity to belittle and slander, but I am looking for those with
different beliefs than my own in order to have an intelligent, and at
times fun, conversation.
Mythbusted, so thats about it really.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ron Baker, Pluralitas!" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism Cannot Exist Part II |
28 Sep 2007 11:24:20 PM |
|
|
"Dennis" <dnospamvickers@fidnet.com> wrote in message
news:ZJidnTWOIfnPUGDbnZ2dnUVZ_saknZ2d@fidnet.com...
Greetings,
Now that I have had your attention
Come on people. Feed this troll. If he doesn't
get more of your attention he might feel bad.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dennis" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism Cannot Exist Part II |
28 Sep 2007 11:31:21 PM |
|
|
"Ron Baker, Pluralitas!" <this@aint.me> wrote in message
news:46fdd2df$0$7450$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
"Dennis" <dnospamvickers@fidnet.com> wrote in message
news:ZJidnTWOIfnPUGDbnZ2dnUVZ_saknZ2d@fidnet.com...
Greetings,
Now that I have had your attention
Come on people. Feed this troll. If he doesn't
get more of your attention he might feel bad.
Please do with an open mind for genuine discussion.
IHS,
Dennis
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
