| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"" |
| Date: |
04 Oct 2007 05:16:31 PM |
| Object: |
Creation Predictions |
Certain dishonest individuals with soc puppets have claimed that
creationists have never made any predictions based on their models. I
claimed to have state predictions on TO and certain individuals claim
that I have never made such predictions. Take a look:
208. J McCoy
View profile
More options Mar 31 2003, 4:47 pm
- Show quoted text -
Of course man could not land on the moon 1000 years ago. We had not
the accumulated knowledge of the last thousand of years. This
knowledge is directly brain related :D
As you know, matter does not have brains.
Could you please define what you mean by "science", Mr. McCoy?
Science is a method. The method is 1. Observation 2. hypothesis. 3.
More Observation/ Repetition. 4. Theory. 5. More observation/
experimentation. 6. Scientific Law.
And while you're at it, please tell us what the scientific theory of
Creationism is. I noted you haven't responded yet.
To summarize this I would say that:
An intelligent being created the universe and all animal life on
earth.
This predicts that there is:
1. Order in the universe.
2. Complexity in all life entities.
From the observation of this truth we predict
1. That chance processes would be shown to be unable to create life
on
it's own. After three observations or more, this should be confirmed
as fact.
2. Also predicted is that man could potentially create life after an
accumulation of knowledge, but...
3. The level of complexity is so great that much more knowledge is
needed to achieve this.
This is just a sample to get started.
J McCoy
Tough times for dishonestead man.
JM
.
|
|
| User: "Rev. Karl E. Taylor" |
|
| Title: Re: Creation Predictions |
04 Oct 2007 07:09:44 PM |
|
|
wrote:
Certain dishonest individuals with soc puppets have claimed that
creationists have never made any predictions based on their models. I
claimed to have state predictions on TO and certain individuals claim
that I have never made such predictions. Take a look:
Yeah, and some of us will still say it. Based on your noise below, they
still ain't predicting anything.
Of course, you have no clue what it means to actually predict something
in the scientific sense of the word.
208. J McCoy
View profile
More options Mar 31 2003, 4:47 pm
- Show quoted text -
Of course man could not land on the moon 1000 years ago. We had not
the accumulated knowledge of the last thousand of years. This
knowledge is directly brain related :D
As you know, matter does not have brains.
Could you please define what you mean by "science", Mr. McCoy?
Science is a method. The method is 1. Observation 2. hypothesis. 3.
More Observation/ Repetition. 4. Theory. 5. More observation/
experimentation. 6. Scientific Law.
And while you're at it, please tell us what the scientific theory of
Creationism is. I noted you haven't responded yet.
To summarize this I would say that:
An intelligent being created the universe and all animal life on
earth.
This predicts that there is:
1. Order in the universe.
Blatant assertion not supported with facts or observation.
A simple look at the universe shows chaos as well as order.
2. Complexity in all life entities.
Blatant assertion not support with facts or observation.
Some life is complex, others are very simple.
Do try to tell them apart, you might actually learn something that way.
From the observation of this truth we predict
1. That chance processes would be shown to be unable to create life
on
it's own. After three observations or more, this should be confirmed
as fact.
Blatant assertion not supported by facts or observation.
You really are pretty bad at this nameless.
2. Also predicted is that man could potentially create life after an
accumulation of knowledge, but...
Humans produce life everyday, accumulated knowledge is not needed for
it. It's a natural, biological, evolutionary trait that helped to make
us the dominant species on this planet.
You'd know that, if you actually tried to learn what it is you are
talking about.
3. The level of complexity is so great that much more knowledge is
needed to achieve this.
Wrong. We are not so complex, neither is life. A simple comparison
between a human being and a cat shows where we fail and that cat does not.
This is just a sample to get started.
You've started nothing nameless, except making yourself look stupid, again.
--
There are none more ignorant and useless,
than they that seek answers on their knees,
with their eyes closed.
____________________________________________________________________
Rev. Karl E. Taylor http://www.secularity.com/ktayloraz
A.A #1143 http://azhotops.blogspot.com/
Apostle of Dr. Lao EAC: Virgin Conversion Unit Director
____________________________________________________________________
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Budikka666" |
|
| Title: I Predict That J. McCoy Will Keep Running From Challenges |
04 Oct 2007 05:48:26 PM |
|
|
On Oct 4, 5:16 pm, wrote:
I see you're still running from my offer of a formal debate. What is
it that you fear? You're brave enough when it comes to posting these
claims of yours, but you never offer a shred of scientific support for
them. Why is that?
Is that why you dare not debate, because you know that the creationist
claims you post here are nothing but easily exposed nonsense?
Is it?
Certain dishonest individuals with soc puppets
This from someone who posts dishonest creationist claims and hides
when asked to support them? Do you want to be a liar, a coward, *and*
a hypocrite now?
have claimed that
creationists have never made any predictions based on their models.
Creationists have no model to begin with. If you disagree, please
post any URL or reference to where we can actually find a scientific
"Theory of Creation" akin to and as supported as the Theory of
Evolution.
claimed to have state predictions on TO and certain individuals claim
that I have never made such predictions. Take a look:
No! Post your predictions here. Let's see what your model is and
what it predicts, shall we?
Of course man could not land on the moon 1000 years ago.
What about women? Are you implying they could?
We had not
the accumulated knowledge of the last thousand of years.
And the reason you know this is? From historical evidence, in
*exactly* the same way we know that evolution is a fact.
Science is a method. The method is 1. Observation 2. hypothesis. 3.
More Observation/ Repetition. 4. Theory. 5. More observation/
experimentation. 6. Scientific Law.
And while you're at it, please tell us what the scientific theory of
Creationism is. I noted you haven't responded yet.
See? We're waiting.
To summarize this I would say that:
An intelligent being created the universe and all animal life on
earth.
You call that a *theory*? Where is the science that points to this
and only this "theory"? What predictions does this "theory" make?
This predicts that there is:
1. Order in the universe.
How does it predict order! That claim presupposes knowledge as to who
this designer is and what his/her/its intentions are/were. Where is
your scientific evidence upon which this prediction is founded? I see
none here.
2. Complexity in all life entities.
Why? How does this prediction derive from your premise? What
science do you have supporting this "prediction"?
1. That chance processes would be shown to be unable to create life
on
it's own.
From what scientific basis is this purportedly derived, especially
given that it has been proven beyond reasonable doubt that mutation
and natural selection can and do achieve this very result.
After three observations or more, this should be confirmed
as fact.
So where are these scientific observations published? Which
professional refereed science journal contains them?
2. Also predicted is that man could potentially create life after an
accumulation of knowledge, but...
What science backs this prediction and how?
3. The level of complexity is so great that much more knowledge is
needed to achieve this.
What science backs this prediction and how?
Anyone can post empty blather. You've done that much. Now it's time
to support it. Can you?
And what about that debate, if you think you have such a strong case,
you ought to be jumping at the chance for a honest exchange of views
with supportive science.
Why aren't you?
Budikka
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: I Predict That J. McCoy Will Keep Running From Challenges |
04 Oct 2007 05:56:11 PM |
|
|
On Oct 4, 3:48 pm, Budikka666 <budik...@netscape.net> wrote:
On Oct 4, 5:16 pm, wrote:
I see you're still running from my offer of a formal debate.
I was unaware of any "formal" debate. But I accept. What's the debate
on?
JM
Why aren't you?
Budikka
.
|
|
|
| User: "David V." |
|
| Title: Re: I Predict That J. McCoy Will Keep Running From Challenges |
04 Oct 2007 09:08:43 PM |
|
|
wrote:
On Oct 4, 3:48 pm, Budikka666 <budik...@netscape.net> wrote:
On Oct 4, 5:16 pm, wrote:
I see you're still running from my offer of a formal debate.
I was unaware of any "formal" debate. But I accept. What's the debate
on?
Apparently something you know nothing about.
--
Dave
"Sacred cows make the best hamburger." Mark Twain.
.
|
|
|
| User: "A.Carlson" |
|
| Title: Re: I Predict That J. McCoy Will Keep Running From Challenges |
18 Oct 2007 02:37:09 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 04 Oct 2007 19:08:43 -0700, "David V." <spam@hotmail.com>
wrote:
mccoy@sunset.net wrote:
On Oct 4, 3:48 pm, Budikka666 <budik...@netscape.net> wrote:
On Oct 4, 5:16 pm, wrote:
I see you're still running from my offer of a formal debate.
I was unaware of any "formal" debate. But I accept. What's the debate
on?
Apparently something you know nothing about.
That hardly narrows the field down any.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: I Predict That J. McCoy Will Keep Running From Challenges |
05 Oct 2007 07:01:20 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 04 Oct 2007 19:08:43 -0700, "David V." <spam@hotmail.com> wrote:
mccoy@sunset.net wrote:
On Oct 4, 3:48 pm, Budikka666 <budik...@netscape.net> wrote:
On Oct 4, 5:16 pm, wrote:
I see you're still running from my offer of a formal debate.
I was unaware of any "formal" debate. But I accept. What's the debate
on?
Apparently something you know nothing about.
Well, that is what he said. He didn't know he had even been challenged. That's
bubba dud's ways.
duke, American-American
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
.
|
|
|
| User: "David V." |
|
| Title: Re: I Predict That J. McCoy Will Keep Running From Challenges |
05 Oct 2007 07:57:14 AM |
|
|
duke wrote:
On Thu, 04 Oct 2007 19:08:43 -0700, "David V."
<spam@hotmail.com> wrote:
mccoy@sunset.net wrote:
On Oct 4, 3:48 pm, Budikka666 <budik...@netscape.net>
wrote:
On Oct 4, 5:16 pm, wrote:
I see you're still running from my offer of a formal
debate.
I was unaware of any "formal" debate. But I accept. What's
the debate on?
Apparently something you know nothing about.
Well, that is what he said. He didn't know he had even been
challenged. That's bubba dud's ways.
Since it is impossible for a troll like you to tell the truth,
the exact opposite of what you said must be true.
--
Dave
"Sacred cows make the best hamburger." Mark Twain.
.
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: I Predict That J. McCoy Will Keep Running From Challenges |
06 Oct 2007 06:32:23 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 05 Oct 2007 05:57:14 -0700, "David V." <spam@hotmail.com> wrote:
I was unaware of any "formal" debate. But I accept. What's
the debate on?
Apparently something you know nothing about.
Well, that is what he said. He didn't know he had even been
challenged. That's bubba dud's ways.
Since it is impossible for a troll like you to tell the truth,
the exact opposite of what you said must be true.
But, but, but, there's his very comment above.
duke, American-American
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
.
|
|
|
| User: "David V." |
|
| Title: Re: I Predict That J. McCoy Will Keep Running From Challenges |
06 Oct 2007 09:39:48 AM |
|
|
duke wrote:
On Fri, 05 Oct 2007 05:57:14 -0700, "David V."
<spam@hotmail.com> wrote:
I was unaware of any "formal" debate. But I accept.
What's the debate on?
Apparently something you know nothing about.
Well, that is what he said. He didn't know he had even
been challenged. That's bubba dud's ways.
Since it is impossible for a troll like you to tell the
truth, the exact opposite of what you said must be true.
But, but, but, there's his very comment above.
Which was a lie. christian lie. creationists lie. That's what
they do. If they ever told the truth the whole world would be
shocked!
--
Dave
"Sacred cows make the best hamburger." Mark Twain.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Budikka666" |
|
| Title: Re: I Predict That J. McCoy Will Keep Running From Challenges |
06 Oct 2007 01:08:11 AM |
|
|
On Oct 5, 7:57 am, "David V." <s...@hotmail.com> wrote:
duke wrote:
On Thu, 04 Oct 2007 19:08:43 -0700, "David V."
<s...@hotmail.com> wrote:
wrote:
On Oct 4, 3:48 pm, Budikka666 <budik...@netscape.net>
wrote:
On Oct 4, 5:16 pm, wrote:
I see you're still running from my offer of a formal
debate.
I was unaware of any "formal" debate. But I accept. What's
the debate on?
Apparently something you know nothing about.
Well, that is what he said. He didn't know he had even been
challenged. That's bubba dud's ways.
Since it is impossible for a troll like you to tell the truth,
the exact opposite of what you said must be true.
You nailed it in one. I challenged McCoy on October 1st in a thread
he started called "Real Science is creationism":
http://tinyurl.com/3433tn
McCoy posted messages in that thread at least four times after my
challenge, so it's hard to see how he can pretend he's unaware of it.
And that thread is your proof that Duke is a lying piece of trash
because *he* also responded in that thread to McCoy specifically about
my challenge!
McCoy had whined, "However, it is quite evident that those who spout
the above words are engaging in purposeful censorship."
To which I responded the very next day: "Then let's give you a forum,
right here in this thread in these public, world-wide fora, shall we?
Please bring your best *positive* *scientific* evidence in favor of
creation/intelligent design, and let's you and me debate it. No
censorship at all. What do you say?"
My guess, judged by his lack of response there and lack of response
here so far (I challenged him (again!) at 5:48 Google time, he
accepted just eight minutes later and I followed up a half-hour or so
after that), that he's going to avoid it. That would actually be a
smart move on his part since he can't actually present any positive
science for creation!
It tickles me greatly that he actually *did* accept despite not having
a clue what it was about, so he claims! There's a stroke of
cluelessness for you!
Who in their right mind would jump into a debate without establishing
what it was about?! Not Duke, that's for sure. As soon as you start
asking him to support his claims with objective evidence or rationale,
he's outta there!
Budikka
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michelle Malkin" |
|
| Title: Re: I Predict That J. McCoy Will Keep Running From Challenges |
06 Oct 2007 03:48:06 AM |
|
|
"Budikka666" <budikka1@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:1191650891.374173.120430@50g2000hsm.googlegroups.com...
On Oct 5, 7:57 am, "David V." <s...@hotmail.com> wrote:
duke wrote:
On Thu, 04 Oct 2007 19:08:43 -0700, "David V."
<s...@hotmail.com> wrote:
wrote:
On Oct 4, 3:48 pm, Budikka666 <budik...@netscape.net>
wrote:
On Oct 4, 5:16 pm, wrote:
I see you're still running from my offer of a formal
debate.
I was unaware of any "formal" debate. But I accept. What's
the debate on?
Apparently something you know nothing about.
Well, that is what he said. He didn't know he had even been
challenged. That's bubba dud's ways.
Since it is impossible for a troll like you to tell the truth,
the exact opposite of what you said must be true.
You nailed it in one. I challenged McCoy on October 1st in a thread
he started called "Real Science is creationism":
http://tinyurl.com/3433tn
McCoy posted messages in that thread at least four times after my
challenge, so it's hard to see how he can pretend he's unaware of it.
And that thread is your proof that Duke is a lying piece of trash
because *he* also responded in that thread to McCoy specifically about
my challenge!
McCoy had whined, "However, it is quite evident that those who spout
the above words are engaging in purposeful censorship."
To which I responded the very next day: "Then let's give you a forum,
right here in this thread in these public, world-wide fora, shall we?
Please bring your best *positive* *scientific* evidence in favor of
creation/intelligent design, and let's you and me debate it. No
censorship at all. What do you say?"
My guess, judged by his lack of response there and lack of response
here so far (I challenged him (again!) at 5:48 Google time, he
accepted just eight minutes later and I followed up a half-hour or so
after that), that he's going to avoid it. That would actually be a
smart move on his part since he can't actually present any positive
science for creation!
It tickles me greatly that he actually *did* accept despite not having
a clue what it was about, so he claims! There's a stroke of
cluelessness for you!
Who in their right mind would jump into a debate without establishing
what it was about?! Not Duke, that's for sure. As soon as you start
asking him to support his claims with objective evidence or rationale,
he's outta there!
Budikka
Pardon me, but I have to throw a rock at your head for
using nameless' name. You may now continue to berate
the little idiot.
--
^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^
Michelle Malkin (Mickey) aa list#1
BAAWA Knight & Bible Thumper Thumper
^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^
When fascism comes to America, it will be
wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross -
Sinclair Lewis
.
|
|
|
| User: "Budikka666" |
|
| Title: Re: I Predict That J. McCoy Will Keep Running From Challenges |
06 Oct 2007 08:47:47 AM |
|
|
On Oct 6, 3:48 am, "Michelle Malkin" <hypati...@comcast.net> wrote:
"Budikka666" <budik...@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:1191650891.374173.120430@50g2000hsm.googlegroups.com...
On Oct 5, 7:57 am, "David V." <s...@hotmail.com> wrote:
duke wrote:
On Thu, 04 Oct 2007 19:08:43 -0700, "David V."
<s...@hotmail.com> wrote:
wrote:
On Oct 4, 3:48 pm, Budikka666 <budik...@netscape.net>
wrote:
On Oct 4, 5:16 pm, wrote:
I see you're still running from my offer of a formal
debate.
I was unaware of any "formal" debate. But I accept. What's
the debate on?
Apparently something you know nothing about.
Well, that is what he said. He didn't know he had even been
challenged. That's bubba dud's ways.
Since it is impossible for a troll like you to tell the truth,
the exact opposite of what you said must be true.
You nailed it in one. I challenged McCoy on October 1st in a thread
he started called "Real Science is creationism":
http://tinyurl.com/3433tn
McCoy posted messages in that thread at least four times after my
challenge, so it's hard to see how he can pretend he's unaware of it.
And that thread is your proof that Duke is a lying piece of trash
because *he* also responded in that thread to McCoy specifically about
my challenge!
McCoy had whined, "However, it is quite evident that those who spout
the above words are engaging in purposeful censorship."
To which I responded the very next day: "Then let's give you a forum,
right here in this thread in these public, world-wide fora, shall we?
Please bring your best *positive* *scientific* evidence in favor of
creation/intelligent design, and let's you and me debate it. No
censorship at all. What do you say?"
My guess, judged by his lack of response there and lack of response
here so far (I challenged him (again!) at 5:48 Google time, he
accepted just eight minutes later and I followed up a half-hour or so
after that), that he's going to avoid it. That would actually be a
smart move on his part since he can't actually present any positive
science for creation!
It tickles me greatly that he actually *did* accept despite not having
a clue what it was about, so he claims! There's a stroke of
cluelessness for you!
Who in their right mind would jump into a debate without establishing
what it was about?! Not Duke, that's for sure. As soon as you start
asking him to support his claims with objective evidence or rationale,
he's outta there!
Budikka
Pardon me, but I have to throw a rock at your head for
using nameless' name. You may now continue to berate
the little idiot.
Ya boo missed me! Narny narny boo boo!
You know, I actually never got the memo on why we're supposed using
"McNameless" which is one reason why I've never subscribed to it. And
as you must realize, atheists are not big on orthodoxy!
Budikka
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: I Predict That J. McCoy Will Keep Running From Challenges |
06 Oct 2007 06:35:05 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 6 Oct 2007 04:48:06 -0400, "Michelle Malkin" <hypatiab7@comcast.net>
wrote:
Who in their right mind would jump into a debate without establishing
what it was about?! Not Duke, that's for sure. As soon as you start
asking him to support his claims with objective evidence or rationale,
he's outta there!
Budikka
Pardon me, but I have to throw a rock at your head for
using nameless' name. You may now continue to berate
the little idiot.
There you go, 2 "women" doing the women thing - argue with me and I'll cut you
off.
No thanks, says I. I have a headache tonight.
Haahaahaahaahaa.
duke, American-American
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "David V." |
|
| Title: Re: I Predict That J. McCoy Will Keep Running From Challenges |
06 Oct 2007 09:37:49 AM |
|
|
Budikka666 wrote:
On Oct 5, 7:57 am, "David V." <s...@hotmail.com> wrote:
duke wrote:
On Thu, 04 Oct 2007 19:08:43 -0700, "David V."
<s...@hotmail.com> wrote:
wrote:
On Oct 4, 3:48 pm, Budikka666 <budik...@netscape.net>
wrote:
On Oct 4, 5:16 pm, wrote:
I see you're still running from my offer of a formal
debate.
I was unaware of any "formal" debate. But I accept.
What's the debate on?
Apparently something you know nothing about.
Well, that is what he said. He didn't know he had even
been challenged. That's bubba dud's ways.
Since it is impossible for a troll like you to tell the
truth, the exact opposite of what you said must be true.
You nailed it in one. I challenged McCoy on October 1st in a
thread he started called "Real Science is creationism":
http://tinyurl.com/3433tn
McCoy posted messages in that thread at least four times after
my challenge, so it's hard to see how he can pretend he's
unaware of it.
And that thread is your proof that Duke is a lying piece of
trash because *he* also responded in that thread to McCoy
specifically about my challenge!
McCoy had whined, "However, it is quite evident that those who
spout the above words are engaging in purposeful censorship."
To which I responded the very next day: "Then let's give you a
forum, right here in this thread in these public, world-wide
fora, shall we? Please bring your best *positive*
*scientific* evidence in favor of creation/intelligent design,
and let's you and me debate it. No censorship at all. What
do you say?"
My guess, judged by his lack of response there and lack of
response here so far (I challenged him (again!) at 5:48 Google
time, he accepted just eight minutes later and I followed up
a half-hour or so after that), that he's going to avoid it.
That would actually be a smart move on his part since he can't
actually present any positive science for creation!
It tickles me greatly that he actually *did* accept despite
not having a clue what it was about, so he claims! There's a
stroke of cluelessness for you!
Who in their right mind would jump into a debate without
establishing what it was about?! Not Duke, that's for sure.
As soon as you start asking him to support his claims with
objective evidence or rationale, he's outta there!
IF creationists had anything near science behind it, those two morons
wouldn't know about it anyway. Puke is a well known net kook
troll so he can be dismissed outright. The other is just
desperately trying to protect his god beliefs. If creationism is
wrong then he is taken out of the center of the Universe, the
center of a gods attention, and out of being special. That's all
these creationists are doing. They are not trying to get the
"truth" out to the world. They do not care about science. They
only care about their own ego.
--
Dave
"Sacred cows make the best hamburger." Mark Twain.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Budikka666" |
|
| Title: Re: I Predict That J. McCoy Will Keep Running From Challenges |
04 Oct 2007 06:30:01 PM |
|
|
On Oct 4, 5:56 pm, wrote:
On Oct 4, 3:48 pm, Budikka666 <budik...@netscape.net> wrote:
On Oct 4, 5:16 pm, wrote:
I see you're still running from my offer of a formal debate.
Clearly you conveniently avoided certain messages in a recent thread
of yours whilst selectively replying to others.
I challenged you to present the positive scientific evidence for your
creationist claims and let's discuss that science.
Can you do that?
Budikka
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: I Predict That J. McCoy Will Keep Running From Challenges |
04 Oct 2007 10:55:30 PM |
|
|
On Oct 5, 6:56 am, wrote:
On Oct 4, 3:48 pm, Budikka666 <budik...@netscape.net> wrote:
On Oct 4, 5:16 pm, wrote:
I see you're still running from my offer of a formal debate.
I was unaware of any "formal" debate. But I accept. What's the debate
on?
JM
Why aren't you?
Budikka- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Budikka and all the science workers have been asking you and all your
gang about the theories and scientific basis of Creationism but get
nothing in reply.
First of all, you can't post a hypothesis, to begin with.
.
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: I Predict That J. McCoy Will Keep Running From Challenges |
05 Oct 2007 07:02:57 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 04 Oct 2007 20:55:30 -0700, wrote:
Budikka and all the science workers have been asking you and all your
gang about the theories and scientific basis of Creationism but get
nothing in reply.
You don't even understand what "creationism" is about.
Remember, bud the dud believes that creation is only 6000 years ago.
duke, American-American
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
.
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Silberstein" |
|
| Title: Re: I Predict That J. McCoy Will Keep Running From Challenges |
05 Oct 2007 09:46:26 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 05 Oct 2007 07:02:57 -0500, in alt.atheism , duke
<duckgumbo32@cox.net> in <ps9cg3l1sp1vi4ko2s9dlqh2rul2h4jikg@4ax.com>
wrote:
On Thu, 04 Oct 2007 20:55:30 -0700, wrote:
Budikka and all the science workers have been asking you and all your
gang about the theories and scientific basis of Creationism but get
nothing in reply.
You don't even understand what "creationism" is about.
Remember, bud the dud believes that creation is only 6000 years ago.
As does McCoy. Go on, defend his ideas.
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
.
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: I Predict That J. McCoy Will Keep Running From Challenges |
06 Oct 2007 06:37:16 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 05 Oct 2007 10:46:26 -0400, Matt Silberstein
<RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
You don't even understand what "creationism" is about.
Remember, bud the dud believes that creation is only 6000 years ago.
As does McCoy. Go on, defend his ideas.
Not me. I don't believe that creation is only 6000 years ago. I'm laughing at
one of the two woman losers on this ng - bud the dud and mmalkin. Neither one
will discuss anything with anyone. For them, it's roll over and shut up, or
they'll move to the other bedroom.
duke, American-American
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: I Predict That J. McCoy Will Keep Running From Challenges |
05 Oct 2007 07:00:10 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 04 Oct 2007 15:56:11 -0700, wrote:
On Oct 4, 3:48 pm, Budikka666 <budik...@netscape.net> wrote:
On Oct 4, 5:16 pm, wrote:
I see you're still running from my offer of a formal debate.
I was unaware of any "formal" debate. But I accept. What's the debate
on?
Look, her record is unblemished. The very second you don't collapse at her feet
in defeat, she will kill file you and proudly advise all that you ran away from
her.
I kid you not - her record stands at 100%,
duke, American-American
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Hey bud the dud - I Predict That J. McCoy Will Keep Running From Challenges |
05 Oct 2007 06:58:12 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 04 Oct 2007 15:48:26 -0700, Budikka666 <budikka1@netscape.net> wrote:
On Oct 4, 5:16 pm, wrote:
I see you're still running from my offer of a formal debate.
But of course you see that. The second he accepts your challenge, you will kill
file him and accuse him of running away from you.
duke, American-American
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Kelsey Bjarnason" |
|
| Title: Re: Creation Predictions |
04 Oct 2007 07:00:20 PM |
|
|
[snips]
On Thu, 04 Oct 2007 15:16:31 -0700, mccoy wrote:
To summarize this I would say that:
An intelligent being created the universe and all animal life on earth.
This predicts that there is:
Umm... it predicts nothing, as there's no mechanism involved. Lacking
that, there's simply no way to tell whether a given effect - moons
orbiting planets, invisible pink unicorns spontaneously forming in your
nostril, whatever - are actually predicted by, or even consistent with,
the notion.
So, we'll delete the following as, whatever they may be, they are not
predictions of the above idea.
Now, you said something about having some predictions of creationism?
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
