| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"duke" |
| Date: |
23 Apr 2004 05:29:29 PM |
| Object: |
Why did Mekkla run away from a discussion of Heb 8:7-13? |
Tsk tsk, mek, you showed you knew how to read a bible verse, then you ran like a scalded
cat from the discussion.
What happened? You aren't as bright as you thought?
.
|
|
| User: "Budikka" |
|
| Title: Re: Why did Mekkla run away from a discussion of Heb 8:7-13? |
25 Apr 2004 02:12:10 PM |
|
|
What you need to learn to do, is surgically remove the massive plank
that's in your own eye before you think you can start blathering your
own quaint but ultimately mindless way about the motes you think you
can see in the eyes of others.
Here's a case in point - the thread you ran away from after accusing
me of running away from threads (and failing even to support *that*
claim).
Are you going to deal with it or run away again and hide behind one of
your vacuous one-liners?
Subject: Re: Scientists find new face on back of Turin shroud
View: Complete Thread (83 articles)
Original Format
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Date: 2004-04-21 22:24:14 PST
duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote in message news:<h4b7801plct3u0vm49plfnlsbc5sq678bh@4ax.com>...
I've posted it here on this ng many, many times. How many times
have you read it and ran away?
I said you can't present the evidence, and instead of presenting the
evidence, all you do is **CLAIM** you've presented the evidence.
It's been posted here in the ng many times.
I note that once again all we have is your hot air - your claim of
something but not a shred of support. Until and unless you actually
present the evidence or present URLs to where you claim you've already
posted it, I cannot do other than conclude you're a liar, and a
pathetic one at that.
And where is your evidence to back up your claim that I specifically,
ran away from it? Or is this more *****?
Anyone that wants to know how many nematodes were on the Ark
are not serious in their presentations.
Again I ask for evidence and again I get mindless blather. Clearly
the concept of evidence is utterly alien to you, isn't it? So far all
we have from you is hot air. Either that or you don't have the
wherewithal to grasp the point being made.
Now there's 2 pieces of bs to chew on. So demonstrate
the flood is untrue. And please,
no 3rd rate web site by a knucklehead.
I don't have to demonstrate something is untrue until and unless you
make a case for it, and since you're incapable of that - since, as
this very thread demonstrates, you cannot offer any evidence at all
for these absurd beliefs of yours, you lose. Deal with it, Loser.
Now here is a flood refutation from someone who was once a
creationist:
http://home.entouch.net/dmd/fld.htm
and here are other articles:
http://www.abarnett.demon.co.uk/atheism/noahs_ark.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/apr02.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/canopy.html
Now you've got the evidence, let's see you refute it. (Note, hot air,
mindless blather, ***** and trash talk does not a refutation make).
Given 1. then the reliability of 2. is inevitably suspect. If they
lied (okay, asserted out of ignorance) about the first, what incentive
is there to believe the second?
You really are speculating now. Do you have anything or not?
You're the one who has been asked to produce evidence and who has
demonstrated he has nothing. Trying to assign your obvious and
demonstrable failures and your colossal incompetence to others is
nothing but cowardice.
The so-called "Big Bang" theory does have solid scientific backing
from multiple sources.
Like what? You're not doing too good so far.
Well you'd actually have to have the wherewithal to read and
comprehend a good science book, which clearly you cannot do.
BTW, you're doing valiantly in the jabriol-wannabe stakes. Keep up
the good work and you may well have a chance of snatching his crown if
you can continue plumbing these depths of inadequacy with this kind of
consistency.
Well these two are functionally the same for the purpose of this
argument, and since there is no evidence to support any of this yet,
it's impossible to say what happened,
Ooooooooh, so now the crawfishing.
Well you're the expert in that - claiming you have evidence for god
and then backtracking into ***** blather and nonsense.
I like my answer - God.
A lot of morons do, but at least scientists have the honesty to say
when they do not know. What you're saying is that ignorance = God!
"Oooh, I don't know what happened" you whine, "Therefore godidit".
How truly pathetic.
or whether it repeatedly
happens. All you have here is unsupported assertion. This is not
evidence of anything.
So offer an alternative that is better.
Science has a better alternative which has been growing stronger for
centuries, and you haven't put up a single thing to overturn it. What
a complete vacuum you truly are. You lose. Deal with it, Loser.
So explain matter and energy that never had a beginning.
Vacuum energy. But what's the point in trying to expain that to
someone who cannot even grasp a good science book? I asked you first,
so as soon as you explain this magic giant in the sky that you worship
and actually offer evidence instead of crappy beliefs, maybe I'll
educate you.
and clearly neither matter nor energy on their own, the
basic building blocks of the universe, could either exist in and of
itself, or in and of its own intelligence.
And your evidence for this assertion is?
Common sense.
Like you have any of that!
Don't you have an alternative to offer?
Science has a better alternative which has been growing stronger for
centuries, and you haven't put up a single thing to overturn it. What
a complete vacuum you truly are. You lose. Deal with it, Loser.
The profession by believers is that our universe is a creation of
almighty God who is truly acknowledged as "always was, is, and always
will be". No alternative is available.
I actually asked for evidence.
No, you want proof, and you can't even offer evidence for your own position.
You said, "Yet all evidence basis logic, reason, and common sense
demand the existence of almighty God."
Notice the key word "evidence"?
So I said: "Yet you cannot present us with an iota of this purported
evidence?"
Notice the key word "evidence"?
So please keep your eye on the ball. I actually asked for evidence,
and you haven't put up a single thing. What a complete vacuum you
truly are. You lose. Deal with it, Loser.
Something from nothing. First nothing, then an infinitely
small point of infinite density appeared then exploded
outward to form the universe and all in it, including all mass,
energy, and time.
And this evidences a god how?
3. Medical science itself professes the human body to reflect a
"design with purpose".
Do you have support for this statement or is this just another blind
assertion of yours?
Try google.
Try getting a clue Moron. I ask for evidence you blather and prattle
like a baby. If you consider that to be evidence, then I'll have to
lower your IQ rating even further than the rock bottom it's already
at.
Once again you've described a natural system, but failed to explain
how this supports your case for the existence of god.
Natural?? Natural comes from God, not instead of God.
And your evidence for this is where? All you're doing is stating what
you believe and you're so stupid you think this constitutes evidence.
You obviously cannot support a single thing you claim. You're a blind
faith believer and that's all you'll ever be. You lose. Deal with
it, Loser.
Are these
*really* the best arguments that you can come up with? This is truly
boring and exceptionally unexceptional for a creationist.
So far all I see you saying is "no".
Well, I asked for evidence first. Science has put all its cards on
the table, and you're sitting there with your hands empty. All you
offered is five statements of your assine beliefs that even a child
would be embarrassed by. There's nothing to refute when all you offer
is nothing. Get it? You lose. Deal with it, Loser.
Once again you have made a good argument for evolution. You have
failed to describe/define/detail how this supports your claim for some
god's intervention.
Sounds like you're hanging on that "natural" argument again.
Sounds like you're an imbecile. You lose. Deal with it, Loser.
Are you aware that there are many asexually or hermaphroditically
reproducing species (probably the majority),
Yes, but not the higher order of life, only the lower.
Are reptiles a lower order of life? In comparison with worms are
reptiles a lower order of life? Once again, how does this constitute
evidence for god?
Obviously the lowest order of life is you, judged by your appalling
grasp of reality.
5. ARC101: In the overall scheme of advancement in relationships of
life forms as we move from the least to the greatest:
And your rationale for this is?
Keep reading.
It doesn't matter how much of your empty-headed ***** I read, it's
still *****, and not a single piece of it offers a shred of the
evidence you promised for this childish myth you worship so
pathetically and so desperately. You lose. Deal with it, Loser.
So no plants grow towards the sun and no plants put their roots down
into the ground? Isn't this relating to "inanimate" objects?
God created plants to lean towards the light.
And your evidence for this is? Oh that's right - you have none, you
have nothing, you are nothing but a tragic impotent myth worshipper.
You lose. Deal with it, Loser.
You're on a loser here already. It has been demonstrated that plants
do respond to insect attacks, for example, so your argument has
failed, regardless of what it was supposed to be doing. Please try to
read up on a subject before pontificating about it.
Not thru intelligent action.
Well that puts them on your level, then, doesn't it? You lose. Deal
with it Loser.
Quite the opposite. It is a dumb response to hunger,
but clearly a higher approach than a
simple leaning towards the sun.
And your evidence for this is? Oh that's right - you have none, you
have nothing, you are nothing but a tragic impotent myth worshipper.
You lose. Deal with it, Loser.
At this point in your argument, I must say I am still tiredly awaiting
you relating anything you've said to the existence of some god, let
alone use it to prove such an existence.
I never said I could prove the existence of God
Thanks for your honesty, but what I asked for was not proof but
evidence, and you failed your god there, too. A description of the
natural world is not evidence for any god. You Lose. Deal with it
Loser.
I'm seriously disappointed
in these "arguments" of yours. You're doing worse than any
creationist I've encountered and they're all certifiably lousy at
this.
And your most intelligent argument against is to say "duhhhh". It's all natural.
Well until and unless there is evidence offered which demands a
supernatural input (which you have five times failed to offer), yes,
it is all natural, by definition. You lose. Deal with it, Loser.
And your support for this assertion is? (A URL will do, if you have
one.)
A first grade education will suffice.
How would you know, since yours was clearly prematurely arrested in
the fairytale world of kindergarten?
Can you make this same argument for a chimpanzee? No! A Gorilla?
No! You cannot even support your claims with regard to the cow. Your
line of "reasoning" fails.
These are on the order of the cow.
Clearly you have some serious reading to do. Can you read? All you
have here is yet another empty claim. If chimpanzees are no different
from cows, where is your evidence for this?
Do cows communicate in sign language? Do they use tools? Do they
paint pictures? Chimpanzees do all of these.
You have failed to grasp the answers.
No, what I failed was to grasp how incredibly dumb, clueless, and
gullible you are.
We use our ability to use logical reasoning to conclude that God truly exists.
hahahahahahahah! That was hilarious. Tell me another "just so"
story....
Same as a cow. A tad more here, a tad less there, but still the same as a cow.
Clearly your brain has stopped growing. An education might jump start
it, but I fear it's too late. Fundamentalism has already set in. But
please, try to get it fixed before you open your mouth again. If you
don't get help at Charter House for your chronic addiction to
mythology, get help somewhere.
Evolutionists are limited to what they see today.
hahahahahahahah! That was hilarious. Tell me another one....
So evolutionists are limited to what they see today, but believers can
time-travel back and verify their myth?
I didn't ask for imagination, rhetoric, or blind assertion. I asked
for evidence,
It is evidence.
Only if you're a complete dipshit.
I can't prove what I can't prove. I can only present my evidence.
Then you need a course in evidence 101, because statement after
statement of blind, gullible, mindless belief is not evidence, not
even close, and if you think it is, you need brain surgery (assuming
there's something to operate on in thee first place).
Your turn. What is your best evidence for the nonexistence of God.
I'll present my turn when you've actually presented something to
answer to. I won't hold my breath if this claptrap is the very best
you can muster.
You will take what's available. You can just say "no" if you want. That's all you have.
No - that's all *you* have, and it's totally inadequate, as are you.
Budikka
.
|
|
|
| User: "Realityis" |
|
| Title: Re: Why did Mekkla run away from a discussion of Heb 8:7-13? |
25 Apr 2004 10:40:25 PM |
|
|
(Budikka) wrote in message news:<e1e30450.0404251112.1a31b731@posting.google.com>...
What you need to learn to do, is surgically remove the massive plank
that's in your own eye before you think you can start blathering your
own quaint but ultimately mindless way about the motes you think you
can see in the eyes of others.
Here's a case in point - the thread you ran away from after accusing
me of running away from threads (and failing even to support *that*
claim).
Are you going to deal with it or run away again and hide behind one of
your vacuous one-liners?
Subject: Re: Scientists find new face on back of Turin shroud
View: Complete Thread (83 articles)
Original Format
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Date: 2004-04-21 22:24:14 PST
duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote in message news:<h4b7801plct3u0vm49plfnlsbc5sq678bh@4ax.com>...
I've posted it here on this ng many, many times. How many times
have you read it and ran away?
I said you can't present the evidence, and instead of presenting the
evidence, all you do is **CLAIM** you've presented the evidence.
It's been posted here in the ng many times.
I note that once again all we have is your hot air - your claim of
something but not a shred of support. Until and unless you actually
present the evidence or present URLs to where you claim you've already
posted it, I cannot do other than conclude you're a liar, and a
pathetic one at that.
You really ***** slapped him Budikka but typically he didn't even
realize it.
Duke reminds me of the Black Night in Monty Python "...come back you
coward its only a flesh wound! ..."
It didn't take me long to see that discussing anything with Duke is a
pretty pointless activity. I admire your determination and tenacity.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: Why did Mekkla run away from a discussion of Heb 8:7-13? |
25 Apr 2004 05:46:29 PM |
|
|
On 25 Apr 2004 12:12:10 -0700, (Budikka) wrote:
What you need to learn to do, is surgically remove the massive plank
that's in your own eye before you think you can start blathering your
own quaint but ultimately mindless way about the motes you think you
can see in the eyes of others.
Here's a case in point - the thread you ran away from after accusing
me of running away from threads (and failing even to support *that*
claim).
Are you going to deal with it or run away again and hide behind one of
your vacuous one-liners?
I didn't run away. I couldn't find you.
Now, back to my Evidence for the existence of God. the last I checked you were stumped in
your tracks.
I've posted it here on this ng many, many times. How many times
have you read it and ran away?
I said you can't present the evidence, and instead of presenting the
evidence, all you do is **CLAIM** you've presented the evidence.
It's been posted here in the ng many times.
I note that once again all we have is your hot air - your claim of
something but not a shred of support. Until and unless you actually
present the evidence or present URLs to where you claim you've already
posted it, I cannot do other than conclude you're a liar, and a
pathetic one at that.
Sorry but you can't dictate the rules. Evidence is evidence. And I presented a
substantial amount for the existence of God. True to atheism, you presented nothing for
the non existence of God.
And where is your evidence to back up your claim that I specifically,
ran away from it? Or is this more *****?
Anyone that wants to know how many nematodes were on the Ark
are not serious in their presentations.
Again I ask for evidence and again I get mindless blather.
You got evidence, and lots of it.
Clearly
the concept of evidence is utterly alien to you, isn't it? So far all
we have from you is hot air. Either that or you don't have the
wherewithal to grasp the point being made.
Main Entry:1proof
Pronunciation:*pr*f
Function:noun
Etymology:Middle English prof, prove, alteration of preve, from Anglo-French preove, from
Late Latin proba, from Latin probare to prove — more at PROVE
Date:13th century
1 a : the cogency of evidence that compels acceptance by the mind of a truth or a fact
I don't claim proof, I claim evidence.
Now there's 2 pieces of bs to chew on. So demonstrate
the flood is untrue. And please,
no 3rd rate web site by a knucklehead.
I don't have to demonstrate something is untrue until and unless you
make a case for it, and since you're incapable of that - since, as
this very thread demonstrates, you cannot offer any evidence at all
for these absurd beliefs of yours, you lose. Deal with it, Loser.
So when are you going to offer evidence for no God?
Answer - you can't.
Now you've got the evidence, let's see you refute it. (Note, hot air,
mindless blather, ***** and trash talk does not a refutation make).
When are you going to offer evidence for no God?
And btw, neither you nor I can offer evidence for, or against, the biblical flood, so try
that end run.
Given 1. then the reliability of 2. is inevitably suspect. If they
lied (okay, asserted out of ignorance) about the first, what incentive
is there to believe the second?
You really are speculating now. Do you have anything or not?
You're the one who has been asked to produce evidence and who has
demonstrated he has nothing.
Sorry, but I gave you that evidence. And you have NOTHING for your own beliefs.
The so-called "Big Bang" theory does have solid scientific backing
from multiple sources.
Like what? You're not doing too good so far.
Well you'd actually have to have the wherewithal to read and
comprehend a good science book, which clearly you cannot do.
sorry, bud, but it's time you put up or shut up.
Well you're the expert in that - claiming you have evidence for god
and then backtracking into ***** blather and nonsense.
remember, evidence is not proof. Better luck next time.
I like my answer - God.
A lot of morons do, but at least scientists have the honesty to say
when they do not know. What you're saying is that ignorance = God!
"Oooh, I don't know what happened" you whine, "Therefore godidit".
How truly pathetic.
Hey, God creating the heavens and the universe is at least as good as anything you can
come up with.
or whether it repeatedly
happens. All you have here is unsupported assertion. This is not
evidence of anything.
So offer an alternative that is better.
Science has a better alternative which has been growing stronger for
centuries, and you haven't put up a single thing to overturn it. What
a complete vacuum you truly are. You lose. Deal with it, Loser.
come come, loser. All you have is hot air. You have nothing to present in defense of
yourself.
So explain matter and energy that never had a beginning.
Vacuum energy.
yeah, the sound your nonsense makes.
and clearly neither matter nor energy on their own, the
basic building blocks of the universe, could either exist in and of
itself, or in and of its own intelligence.
And your evidence for this assertion is?
Common sense.
Like you have any of that!
come come, bud, but can't you offer anything at all?
Don't you have an alternative to offer?
Science has a better alternative which has been growing stronger for
centuries, and you haven't put up a single thing to overturn it. What
a complete vacuum you truly are. You lose. Deal with it, Loser.
I keep offering evidence. You keep offering hot air. Loser.
The profession by believers is that our universe is a creation of
almighty God who is truly acknowledged as "always was, is, and always
will be". No alternative is available.
I actually asked for evidence.
No, you want proof, and you can't even offer evidence for your own position.
You said, "Yet all evidence basis logic, reason, and common sense
demand the existence of almighty God."
Exactly right.
Notice the key word "evidence"?
Yes, I use it deliberately.
So I said: "Yet you cannot present us with an iota of this purported
evidence?"
I gave it to you. Evidence is that which compells one to come to an evidence.
Notice the key word "evidence"?
So please keep your eye on the ball. I actually asked for evidence,
and you haven't put up a single thing. What a complete vacuum you
truly are. You lose. Deal with it, Loser.
You don't know the definition of "evidence". It's less than proof.
Something from nothing. First nothing, then an infinitely
small point of infinite density appeared then exploded
outward to form the universe and all in it, including all mass,
energy, and time.
And this evidences a god how?
Equal to and better than anything you can come up with.
3. Medical science itself professes the human body to reflect a
"design with purpose".
Do you have support for this statement or is this just another blind
assertion of yours?
Try google.
Try getting a clue Moron. I ask for evidence you blather and prattle
like a baby. If you consider that to be evidence, then I'll have to
lower your IQ rating even further than the rock bottom it's already
at.
No matter how low my IQ, I still have the better of you.
Once again you've described a natural system, but failed to explain
how this supports your case for the existence of god.
Natural?? Natural comes from God, not instead of God.
And your evidence for this is where? All you're doing is stating what
you believe and you're so stupid you think this constitutes evidence.
You obviously cannot support a single thing you claim. You're a blind
faith believer and that's all you'll ever be. You lose. Deal with
it, Loser.
You are an empty shell of knowledge, bud.
Are these
*really* the best arguments that you can come up with? This is truly
boring and exceptionally unexceptional for a creationist.
So far all I see you saying is "no".
Well, I asked for evidence first. Science has put all its cards on
the table, and you're sitting there with your hands empty. All you
offered is five statements of your assine beliefs that even a child
would be embarrassed by. There's nothing to refute when all you offer
is nothing. Get it? You lose. Deal with it, Loser.
I've asked you for your evidence. Your silence is deafening. You lose.
Once again you have made a good argument for evolution. You have
failed to describe/define/detail how this supports your claim for some
god's intervention.
Sounds like you're hanging on that "natural" argument again.
Sounds like you're an imbecile. You lose. Deal with it, Loser.
sorry, buda, but unless you can offer challenging words, you are the loser.
Obviously the lowest order of life is you, judged by your appalling
grasp of reality.
You're failing miserably. Your argument is limited to insult names.
5. ARC101: In the overall scheme of advancement in relationships of
life forms as we move from the least to the greatest:
And your rationale for this is?
Keep reading.
It doesn't matter how much of your empty-headed ***** I read, it's
still *****, and not a single piece of it offers a shred of the
evidence you promised for this childish myth you worship so
pathetically and so desperately. You lose. Deal with it, Loser.
I waiting for something of substance from you , bud.
So no plants grow towards the sun and no plants put their roots down
into the ground? Isn't this relating to "inanimate" objects?
God created plants to lean towards the light.
And your evidence for this is?
Common sense, and you have none.
Well that puts them on your level, then, doesn't it? You lose. Deal
with it Loser.
Can't you even offer one shred of evidence to support your case? Of course not.
I never said I could prove the existence of God
Thanks for your honesty, but what I asked for was not proof but
evidence,
And you got a gaggle of that. But you can't do the same for yourself.
Well until and unless there is evidence offered which demands a
supernatural input (which you have five times failed to offer), yes,
it is all natural, by definition. You lose. Deal with it, Loser.
You have an overflow of my evidence. I have nothing from you.
Can you make this same argument for a chimpanzee? No! A Gorilla?
No! You cannot even support your claims with regard to the cow. Your
line of "reasoning" fails.
These are on the order of the cow.
Clearly you have some serious reading to do. Can you read? All you
have here is yet another empty claim. If chimpanzees are no different
from cows, where is your evidence for this?
Both are only capable of breed type.
Do cows communicate in sign language? Do they use tools? Do they
paint pictures? Chimpanzees do all of these.
Pure training, like a dog doing a trick for a treat.
You have failed to grasp the answers.
No, what I failed was to grasp how incredibly dumb, clueless, and
gullible you are.
Yet I'm the one that substantiated my claims, and you are saying "duhhhhhhhhhhhh".
We use our ability to use logical reasoning to conclude that God truly exists.
hahahahahahahah! That was hilarious. Tell me another "just so"
story....
You are not even capable of offering a counter statement.
Well, enough of your silliness. When you have something to offer for your position, come
back. Right now you are dead in the water, so to speak.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Budikka" |
|
| Title: Re: Why did Mekkla run away from a discussion of Heb 8:7-13? |
26 Apr 2004 08:48:42 PM |
|
|
duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote in message news:<8vdo80tb4pk01jgvsib4h3rj9vug438jr2@4ax.com>...
Here's a case in point - the thread you ran away from after accusing
me of running away from threads (and failing even to support *that*
claim).
Are you going to deal with it or run away again and hide behind one of
your vacuous one-liners?
I didn't run away. I couldn't find you.
Liar. The thread is clearly visible in alt.atheism, and your absence
is clearly noted. You ran away like the chickenshit that you are are
because you couldn't come up with a respectable response. Leave your
mythical fairytale world and deal with the truth - with reality, for
once in your stinking, pathetic excuse for a life, why don't you?
Now, back to my Evidence for the existence of God.
I wish you would get back to it. I'm still waiting on you posting
any. But do please keep on making your hilarious, off-the-wall quips
- they're the only thing that make your messages worth reading.
the last I checked you were stumped in your tracks.
The last time I checked, all you had posted was your blind beliefs
with not a shred of evidence in sight and you admitted this, so where
we're at, for those of you with the attention span of a retarded
Mayfly, is we're still waiting on you posting **ACTUAL EVIDENCE**, as
opposed to yet more statements of your blind, clueless, moronic,
ill-informed beliefs, descriptions of nature, and ill-assorted
blather.
Only a complete asswipe would post a response claiming someone was
"stumped" in their tracks (what a quaint way you have with English.
Is it your second language?) in response to a message that was
reminding said asswipe of his total failure to respond to said
message, which message included these refutations of the Biblical
flood, to which you have not offered even a hint of a rebuttal:
http://home.entouch.net/dmd/fld.htm
and here are other articles:
http://www.abarnett.demon.co.uk/atheism/noahs_ark.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/apr02.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/canopy.html
And BTW, descriptions of the natural world do not a case for God make.
Get it? So how about growing up, boy, and dealing with the fact that
you're a worthless piece of lying dogshit who is living under the
seriously mistaken belief that simply naysaying or deriding a message
is the same thing as responding to it with a refutation or a rebuttal?
How about it? How about once in your vacuous life facing up to the
truth that you have no evidence and cannot even make up an argument in
favor of the existence of god to save your worthless, useless,
second-rate hide?
Oh, I freely admit your responses do have an unintentional humorous
quotient, as you flap around uselessly like a tired old, ill-fated
fish-out-of-water, but even hilarity of that magnitude can become
rather tedious, you know?
I've posted it here on this ng many, many times. How many times
have you read it and ran away?
I said you can't present the evidence, and instead of presenting the
evidence, all you do is **CLAIM** you've presented the evidence.
It's been posted here in the ng many times.
I note that once again all we have is your hot air - your claim of
something but not a shred of support. Until and unless you actually
present the evidence or present URLs to where you claim you've already
posted it, I cannot do other than conclude you're a liar, and a
pathetic one at that.
Sorry but you can't dictate the rules. Evidence is evidence.
You are extraordinarily dense, aren't you? Are you, perchance, in the
Guinness Book of World Records for being the densest thing on the
planet?
Once again instead of presenting the evidence I've repeatedly asked
for, or directing me to it by means of a URL to the news group message
where you posted it, all we get is your blather, which has pretty much
been proven worthless. You're so obviously a liar. Why should anyone
believe you on this occasion?
You're claiming you've presented evidence but cannot offer any support
for this claim. What if I claim I've utterly refuted your evidence
every time you've posted any? How about that? You haven't presented
any support for this evidence you claim you've posted, so I certainly
don't have to present any evidence that I've refuted it! By your
rules, all I have to do is claim I've refuted it. So, I win. Is this
really how you want to go down in flames? You are going down one way
or another, but this is probably the least respectable way, so why not
actually present the evidence or a URL to it?
BTW, your claim, even if proven true, only if what you posted actually
is evidence! Once again, unsupported opinions do not count, nor do
your unsupported blind beliefs, nor do your descriptions of the
natural world. None of this is evidence. If it were, I could simply
say that I know you're wrong, and that my "evidence" - that I know
you're wrong - clearly overwhelms yours. Where would we be then,
moron? Is this how you think scientists established a case for
evolution, by simply publishing papers where they said, "Hey, dude,
evolution, like, really happened!"? Present evidence, not blind
unsupported opinion and wishful thinking. Get it now?
And I presented a
substantial amount for the existence of God.
No, you presented opinion, as I will demonstrate - again - which was
unsupported by anything, as I will demonstrate - again. This is
unsupported opinion, and it does not constitute evidence. Did you
sleep through Science 101? Is this how you came to be so appallingly
uninformed?
True to atheism, you presented nothing for
the non existence of God.
Atheism, since you're as clueless about this as you are about the rest
of reality, is merely the lack of a belief in any gods. The reason we
lack belief is because there is no evidence whatsoever for any god
actually existing. Until and unless such evidence is presented, there
is no case to make. Atheism is the default position until and unless
credible, supportible evidence is presented.
As I and others have pointed out to you on several occasions (not that
these repeated illustrations could ever possibly permeate your thick
as pigshit hide), statements of your whacky, infantile beliefs do not
constitute evidence, and what I asked for, for those of you who are
congenital imbeciles, is **EITHER THE EVIDENCE OR A URL TO WHERE YOU
CLAIM YOU HAVE POSTED IT**.
Clearly, from your hopeless, helpless comments, you have failed in
both of these options, and the only conclusion left to us is that you
are, once again, nothing but a lying bowl of pigswill. Get it now,
jackass?
You got evidence, and lots of it.
Once again, buttwipe, I got your clueless and unsupported childish
opinions, as I will agiand emonstrate here, and foundationless
beliefs, not a shred of evidence, as I pointed out, and which you have
not even attempted to intelligently refute.
So when are you going to offer evidence for no God?
Answer - you can't.
Once again for those with brains indistinguishable from silly putty,
there is no need to refute something that has never been established
in the first place. How many times are we going to have to repeat
this to you before it sinks into your clueless excuse for a mind?
Do I have to make a case for the non-existence of blue fairies at the
bottom of your yard? Do I demand that *you* make such a case? No!
There's no case to be made for the non-existence of such fairies until
and unless someone actually presents what they claim is evidence that
such fairies exist.
The same applies to this god of yours. Until and unless you actually
present **EVIDENCE** (as opposed to unsupported blind belief and
opinion, and descriptions of the natural world), there is no need for
me to do anything but laugh at you, which I do heartily every day that
i read your blather.
It's a waste of time even attmepting to refute something for which
there is no evidence in the first place, especially when the intended
recipient of such evidence would be an imbecile like you who doesn't
even know what evidence is. So, to summarize: First **YOU** actually
have to make a case that this fucked-up myth of yours has any basis in
reality. Until and unless you can do that, you lose, Loser. Deal
with it.
And btw, neither you nor I can offer evidence for,
or against, the biblical flood, so try that end run.
Finally you have the honesty to admit you can provide not an iota of
evidence whatsoever to support the Bible flood story. I'm still
waiting on you admitting the same about the existence of God and the
Bible creation story, because they're all in the same boat, so to
speak.
On the flood, I posted several URLs, none of which you have even
attempted to refute or rebut, so again, contrary to your pathetically
transparent lies, there is:
1. No detectable evidence that there ever was a global flood
and
2. Solid refutation of the Biblical flood myth.
Sorry, but I gave you that evidence.
Once again, Moron, descriptions of the natural world do not constitute
evidence for any god. On the contrary - they support the case for
evolution. You actually have to point out something in the natural
world which is demonstrably inexplicable unless we call on a god to
explain it, and this you have failed to do. If you actually have
evidence, **ONCE AGAIN** either post it here or give me URLs to where
I can read it. This is like the fourth time I've asked. If you fail
again to offer anything, then you're a liar and there's no denying it.
The so-called "Big Bang" theory does have solid scientific backing
from multiple sources.
Like what? You're not doing too good so far.
Well you'd actually have to have the wherewithal to read and
comprehend a good science book, which clearly you cannot do.
sorry, bud, but it's time you put up or shut up.
No, *****-up, you need to offer the **EVIDENCE** first, then I will
refute it. Once again, your blind, childish belief is not evidence.
Descriptions of the natural world are not evidence. Lies are not
evidence. Blather and ***** are not evidence. If you have
evidence, either point me to it or post it here.
Hey, God creating the heavens and the universe is at
least as good as anything you can come up with.
And once again all we get is a statement of your blind belief that god
created everything. Not a single scrap of evidence is apparent
anywhere in this statement. All you're doing is saying, "Yeah, it's
so because I say so". Sorry, you lose, so ***** you and the god you
rode in on. Alternately, please, do thrill us all with your erudition
and demonstrate how this simpering, childish profession of blind
belief is evidence for any god's existence.
come come, loser. All you have is hot air.
You have nothing to present in defense of yourself.
I don't need to defend myself. **YOU** need to deal with 140 years of
evidence for evolution posted in endless articles in science journals.
You have to deal with a 4.5 billion year old Earth in a 13.7 billion
year old universe. You have to deal with genetics refuting creation,
with geology refuting the global flood myth. Get it now?
So explain matter and energy that never had a beginning.
Vacuum energy.
yeah, the sound your nonsense makes.
He he. What a prize peach you are. I tell you, if it wasn't for your
airhead responses, this would be a truly boring day. But the bottom
line remains: if you don't know the subject, then shut the ***** up,
*****. Someone with any smarts at all would at least have made the
effort to read up on current scientific knowledge before they blather
their ignorance all over the Internet, but you're just too much of a
dumb ***** to get that part of reality, aren't you? Is it any wonder
that people like you are the reason Jesus wept?
Try reading something by Stephen Hawking. His popular books don't use
too many big words. Even you might be able to grasp some of it.
Notice the key word "evidence"?
Yes, I use it deliberately.
But the hilarious part is that you don't have a clue what it means!
I'm in tears here, you're so funny. Do you have your own stand-up
act?
So I said: "Yet you cannot present us with an iota of this purported
evidence?"
I gave it to you. Evidence is that which compells one to come to an evidence.
"Evidence is that which compells one to come to an evidence" Do you
have any clue what gibberish that is? Can I use it in my sig? And
'compels' has only one 'L', BTW.
Once again, your infantile grasp of reality does not constitute
evidence for any god. Claiming there is a god does not constitute
evidence for any god. Descriptions of the natural world do not
constitute evidence for any god.
So please keep your eye on the ball. I actually asked for evidence,
and you haven't put up a single thing. What a complete vacuum you
truly are. You lose. Deal with it, Loser.
You don't know the definition of "evidence". It's less than proof.
Who's talking about proof? I didn't ask for proof, I asked for
evidence, but this doesn't seem to be able to get any purchase inside
your balsa wood brain. Notice that I specifically did NOT ask for
your infantile grasp of reality, your blind helpless claims that,
"Hey, there really is a god" or descriptions of the natural world.
These are not evidence. You claim you've posted it but cannot point
me to a URL where I can find this, nor can you summarize it here.
This means that you're a liar. Just to prove this, let's look, one
more time (for those of you who are complete flush boxes) at the
opinions (not evidence) that you offered in the thread where you so
arrogantly claimed you would offer evidence.
"1. The belief that a supreme being is the creator
of the universe is based on a profession by those
that believe that is equal to, but no less than,
any profession that our universe exists for any
other alternative reason that can be imagined."
This is just a statement of personal belief: that your belief is on
par with that of those who understand that the universe arose
naturally. However, this does not constitute evidence for any gods,
nor do you support your claim that your belief is on par with what
scientific evidence demonstrates, which is a natural universe much
older than 6,000 years, in which no gods appear to exert any
influence.
There is no indication whatsoever that any god had any involvement in
this universe (at least after the Big Bang), so how does this
constitute positive evidence **FOR** god? The answer is that it
doesn't. It's merely a statement of what you blindly believe. This
is not evidence!
All you're saying is that you **BELIEVE** that your personal belief
carries the same weight as the mountain of scientific evidence that
nothing miraculous occurred after the Big Bang.
But there are a lot of other people on the planet who believe a
different god created this universe in a different way. Why should
your belief carry any more weight than theirs? Clearly the only way
to resolve this is to look not at what belief and blind faith says,
but at what the evidence shows! The evidence shows that no god had
any part in this universe at least since the Big Bang, because there
is no evidence whatsoever that anything unnatural happened in the last
13.7 billion years. Either that or this god has been so hidden behind
the scenes that he has left not a trace.
Now if you want to offer **EVIDENCE** that a god *DID* have
involvement after the Big Bang, then you need to present this evidence
(not another statement that you believe a god was involved, but actual
evidence pointing to and only to this god's intervention) or a URL to
this evidence.
"One could hypothesize an astronomical event such
as a prior universe that collapsed in on itself
and has now exploded outward to form our new
present universe. If this did happen, it would
have happened again and again for the same reason
as the latest occurrence, thereby suggesting that
the universe always was, is, and always will be.
Yet another equal suggestion is that the universe
was birthed out of another universe, or another
dimension."
This is just a (poorly informed) description of theories about how
this universe arose. It does not constitute evidence for any god.
"The human mind cannot cope with the idea that all
things lack a beginning, and clearly neither matter
nor energy on their own, the basic building blocks
of the universe, could either exist in and of itself,
or in and of its own intelligence."
This is just a statement of belief. It is completely unsupported and
does not constitute evidence for any god.
"The profession by believers is that our universe is
a creation of almighty God who is truly acknowledged
as "always was, is, and always will be". No
alternative is available."
Again, this is just a statement of belief. You have offered no
evidence whatsoever to support any claim you made in this entire
statement. Your incoherent ramblings of what you believe are not
evidence, they're simply blather about what you believe. If you
cannot tell the difference, then I'm sorry for you.
Therefore your first point does not give what I asked for. What I was
asking for was positive evidence demonstrating the existence of a god.
All you're saying here in item #1 is, "Well I believe this myth and I
believe my belief is equal to anything else!" This is not evidence
**FOR** the existence of any god.
It *is*, however, strong evidence that: a). you blindly believe, and
b). you have no idea what evidence actually is.
"2. The big bang - first there was nothing - no time, no
mass, no energy, no "outer space" - then an infinitely
small point of infinitely dense mass appeared which was
not there before, and then it exploded outward to form
our universe, including "time" and all "outer space" as
we know it."
This is just a statement of your (poor) understanding of the so-called
Big Bang. It does not constitute evidence for any god. It isn't even
accurate, in that you're claiming certain things which are at present
unknown: that there was nothing before the Big Bang (we don't know
this).
"The universe is expanding, but into what? Is there
an edge to the universe, and if there is, what is it
expanding into?"
This is a statement of how clueless you are with regard to cosmology.
It does not constitute evidence for the existence of any god.
"3. Medical science itself professes the human body
to reflect a "design with purpose".
This is just a statement of your belief. You offer no actual
**EVIDENCE** to support this claim.
"It consists of a central computer (brain) supported
by a fluid transfer system (blood) forced along by a
pump (heart), an energy conversion system (stomach
and intestines), a waste disposal system, an oxygen
transfer system (lungs) that is required to transfer
necessary oxygen to the brain and to the body parts,
maintenance organs (spleen, gall bladder, etc), and
a body salinity (same as ocean water) exactly correct
as necessary for transfer of minute electrical signals
to/from the brain to operate and control the body."
This is simply a kindergarten description of a body - it doesn't even
have to be human. This is purely descriptive and offers no evidence
whatsoever for any god. You offer no indication as to how your
description of this body constitutes evidence for some god and the
same system can be described as the result of a purely natual
evolution.
Again, it *is* strong evidence that you have no idea what evidence
actually is, because this body is simply part of a much greater
natural system that has a succession of bodies, from one simple single
cell, through more complex cells, through multi-celled bodies that are
relatively simple, to hugely multi-celled bodies that appear more
complex, but are really only aggregates of those initial simple cells,
when you get right down to it. All of these organisms are based on
the same six basic chemicals, the same five basic nucleotides, the
same 20 basic amino acids. Nothing miraculous there.
"4. The conception equation contained in animal forms
is divided 50% in the male and 50% in the female. We
only mix the chemicals."
What the heck is a conception equation? You fail to define exactly
what it is that is supposed to be divided 50/50, and your claim is
actually not true because many species reproduce asexually or are
hermaphrodites, or reproduce by cloning, including some of the higher
life forms such as the Whiptail lizard. Some species of amphibians
and frogs can change sex. Nor are the sex chromosomes 50/50 - in
humans, for example, the X chromosome is much larger than the Y, and
the female egg dwarfs the male sperm.
"Of special interest is the fact that the male and female
organs are of complimentary shape in mammals. These two
facts are especially conducive to support planned design."
I note you bizarrely confine this to claim to mammals. But you fail
to grasp that these organs are also predictably the result of
evolution, so this gets you nowhere. All that's left is your *belief*
that it was god and not evolution so, once again, this does not
constitute any **EVIDENCE** at all for any god.
"5. ARC101: In the overall scheme of advancement in
relationships of life forms as we move from the least
to the greatest:"
By whose definition?
"The rock (inanimate object) does not respond to, or
relate to, the plant's existence because it fully lacks
the faculties to do so."
That depends on how you define what those faculties are. Soil and
organisms in it very much repsond to plants putting their roots down.
You lose.
"Nor does the plant acknowledge,
in any fashion, it's awareness of the inanimate object."
BTE, since when has a rock been a life form? And ocne agian, as I
made clear before, there are plants that respond to insect attacks and
communicate with each other. This is a documented fact. This defeats
your simplistic "thesis".
"One level upward,"
By your unsupported and demonstrably clueless view of things.
"the plant (simple life) does not respond to, or relate to,
the cow's existence because it lacks the faculties to do so.
However, the cow does have a limited reverse recognition of
the plant because it is a noted food source for the cow, but
the plant does not relate in any way to the cow, what it is,
or why it is."
Don't see any evidence of any god yet.
"One level up,"
By your unsupported and demonstrably clueless view of things
"the cow (complex life form)"
By what definition? Again we get a simple (very simple) statement of
things no part of which demonstrates any evidence for the existence of
any god, and you don't even support these claims you're making. So
once again, this is not evidence, it's merely a statement of your
whacko belief system.
"does not respond to, or relate to, the human's existence,
other than in very rudimentary ways, because it lacks the
faculties to do so."
Once again a statement of your beliefs that is backed up up by not a
single shred of support.
"Man, on the other hand, has a full range of knowledge"
By what/whose criteria? How is this knowledge defined? How is "full
range" defined? How does this knowledge offer evdience of any god's
existence? Once again all we have is a statement of your beliefs and
not a shred of evidence for the existence of any god.
"and a clear relationship directed backward to the cow
including leading the cow by the nose, but the cow has
minimal upward reaction to the man"
What does this mean? How is this reaction defined? How does this
reaction or lack of it present evidence for the existence of any god?
Once again all we have is a statement of your beliefs and not a shred
of evidence for the existence of any god.
"other than the cow sees the man, but has no idea what
the man is or what the man does or why the man is there."
Again, you're over-simplifying things in the desperate hope that your
grim fairytale will go uncriticised.
"Notice how one level can relate backwards to a lower
level, but in the opposite higher level only in a very
rudimentary fashion. Yet each higher level not only
exists but exists "basically unknown" to the level
below it."
Again this is an unsupported statement of your beliefs. It offers not
a shred of evidence for the existence of any god, and it is not even
supported as a claim of itself. I presented examples of other
organisms, such as dophins and chimpanzees, which are nothing like
cows in their apprehension and behavior. You have faield to
intelligently address these flaws in your "thesis". Your claim seems
to rely on the farcical assumption that all animals behave and think
likes cows, which is transparently stupid.
"What, then, regarding the existence of a level higher than
the human? As is seen at each level, the inability, or
limited ability, to relate to the level above it does not
in any way negate its very existence."
But it does not predict such an existence, either, not even on the
natural level, much less predict a supernatural one. All you have
done is present examples of what you claim (with no support
whatsoever) are different "levels" of existence, and then arbitrarily
jump from this to some inane high-school claim that there "must be" a
supernatural god because there are (undefined) "levels" of natural
existence.
This is a non-sequitur. There is no reason whatsoever to make the
assine leap from one to the other and you haven't even supported your
ridiculous "argument" in the first place.
"We knowingly lack sufficient faculties to respond to,
or relate to, a higher level above man."
This alone refutes your entire claim. If we "lack sufficient
faculties to respond to, or relate to, a higher level above man.",
then how could anyone have written a Bible? How can you pretend there
is a god or that you can begin to understand this "god"? Your own
mindless blather trips you up.
"Does this negate the existence of such a level? Why should
we be able to relate upwards when lower life can't."
Precisely. This is where your childish "logic" fails dismally.
" By all logic, there should be at least one level above human."
There is no logic here, only a set of fairytale beliefs in "levels"
for which you have entirely failed to make a case, and even if you had
made such a case, there is no "logic" in your dumb leap of faith from
what you claim is the highest level, to some myth that is supposed to
be at some level higher than "man".
"As humans (mankind), we possess tremendous advanced
faculties over those of the cow - intelligence,"
undefined, and not the sole preserve of humanity.
" reason,"
undefined, and not the sole preserve of humanity.
" logic,"
undefined, and not the sole preserve of humanity.
" love,"
undefined, and not the sole preserve of humanity.
" empathy,"
undefined, and not the sole preserve of humanity.
" sympathy,"
undefined, and not the sole preserve of humanity.
" knowing we suffer"
You think animals don't know that they suffer?
"and why, etc."
You think animals don't know why they suffer? If they didn't know
why, they would not avoid predators and poisonous plants. If you
meant this in some other way, then you need to graduate from this
high-school bullhsit you're spewing all over Usenet, and explain
yourself better.
"And we can use these faculties to study, learn, reason,
dream, and subjectively conclude that, logically speaking,
some level should exist higher than man."
Still waiting on this "logic" of yours, because once again all we have
here is a statement of your cretin beliefs. There is no evidence here
for any god, unless you want to completely redfine what evidence is,
in which case, please do present your new definition of evidence and
let's argue at that level. it will be fun to wipe the floor with you
on your own terms.
"As before, we too are limited in our ability"
You are, that's one thing you've definitely proven.
" to relate to that higher level, but in no way does
this negate its existence."
If we cannot relate to it, how can we possibly determine if it exists?
"If there is no greater known than man, then man would
be the pinnacle of life, the top - evidenced by the
mess we make of the world - war, disease, pestilence,
hatred, man's inhumanity to man, etc."
"Once again, I am *still* awaiting your explanation as to how
destructive impulses establish something as the pinnacle of anything.
"Man as the ultimate, the pinnacle, the top, is illogical."
No one in evolution argues that "man" is the top. Humankind is simply
the tip of one branch in the bush of life. There is nothing in it to
suggest that we're the greatest thing that ever evolved. That's a
religious belief unsupported by the facts.
"How many levels are there above us? We don't know"
Finally you admit the truth - you don't know squat! You're just
guessing and indulging in grade-school level wishful thinking. This
does not constitute evidence. So, again, I'm still waiting on you
presenting **ANY** evidence. Not a single one of your five points can
be seen as evidence in any way, shape, or form.
"we can't even prove so much as one level. The top
level, by all logic,"
Still waiting on this logic. I haven't seen any evidence of that,
either.
"must be *perfection*. Is it reasonable to think the
move from man to the top is made in one step? That is
not very imaginative."
Didn't ask for your puerile imagination. Asked for evidence. Didn't
get any. still waiting.
"So let's think in term of two steps"
Why two steps? Why not zero? Why not one? Why not 99? Why not
admit you're pulling this ***** out of your ***** as you go without a
smidgeon of support for anything you've said?
"one greater than man and one lesser than a supreme
being. Strangely enough, the "angel" fits the position
exactly, more than man but less than perfection."
So this makes Satan our intermediary with god. Great thinking, Moron!
Now all you have to do is offer evidence that angels actually exist
and I won't hold my breath on that either given the *****-poor excuse
for "evidence" you've offered here. Get this idea from a cheapass TV
show, did you?
"Can we prove it - of course not. But we can use our
advanced capacities to dream, to aspire,"
If you ask me, having read all this trash, all you've aspirated is too
much glue. Dreams and aspirations are not evidence. They're dreams
and aspirations, aka wishful thinking. Still waiting on the evidence.
Yawn. Not holding my breath. Yawn.
I never said I could prove the existence of God
Thanks for your honesty, but what I asked for was not proof but
evidence,
And you got a gaggle of that.
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha! Wow, you're so funny!
You have an overflow of my evidence. I have nothing from you.
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha! Holy Moley, you're a riot!
Can you make this same argument for a chimpanzee? No! A Gorilla?
No! You cannot even support your claims with regard to the cow. Your
line of "reasoning" fails.
These are on the order of the cow.
Clearly you have some serious reading to do. Can you read? All you
have here is yet another empty claim. If chimpanzees are no different
from cows, where is your evidence for this?
Both are only capable of breed type.
Define "breed type", and explain how this refutes evolution. What is
your definition of "kind"? What mechanism is it which prevents one
"kind" from changing into another "kind" over time? Do you understand
what evolution is?
So how come the chimpanzee has very damned nearly the same DNA that we
do, including **THE SAME MISTAKES** in the DNA? How come the
chimpanzee's chromosome count is different from ours only in that one
of us has two chromosomes fused together and the other has them
separated?
Do cows communicate in sign language? Do they use tools? Do they
paint pictures? Chimpanzees do all of these.
Pure training, like a dog doing a trick for a treat.
Or like a ***** who can't offer anything but the ritualistic
***** that all creationists are cursed with? One who cannot think
for himself, who cannot offer evidence because he has no clue what it
actually is? Who cannot even begin a debate let alone hold his own in
one? Some like you, maybe? Well you know what, your tricks are
getting old and tired, and everybody's onto them.
Try reading "Next of Kin" by Roger Fouts, who (unlike you) actually
knows what he's talking about when it comes to chimpanzee
communication.
Budikka - God wouldn't have given us the finger if he didn't want us
to use it in his name
.
|
|
|
| User: "The other Donald" |
|
| Title: Re: Why did Mekkla run away from a discussion of Heb 8:7-13? |
27 Apr 2004 06:21:40 PM |
|
|
"Budikka" <budikka1@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:e1e30450.0404261748.6e17da0c@posting.google.com...
duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote in message
news:<8vdo80tb4pk01jgvsib4h3rj9vug438jr2@4ax.com>...
[snippage]
Sorry but you can't dictate the rules. Evidence is evidence.
You are extraordinarily dense, aren't you? Are you, perchance, in the
Guinness Book of World Records for being the densest thing on the
planet?
I read it somewhere:
"He's so dense, light bends around him."
[more snippage]
-Donald in Austin
AA #2104
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: Why did Mekkla run away from a discussion of Heb 8:7-13? |
27 Apr 2004 06:14:34 AM |
|
|
On 26 Apr 2004 18:48:42 -0700, (Budikka) wrote:
I didn't run away. I couldn't find you.
Liar. The thread is clearly visible in alt.atheism, and your absence
is clearly noted.
Nah, bud - my newsreader (Agent) relects new messages in color one time only. After that,
nothing stands out. I couldn't find, because I couldn't remember, the thread title.
You ran away like the chickenshit that you are are
because you couldn't come up with a respectable response. Leave your
mythical fairytale world and deal with the truth - with reality, for
once in your stinking, pathetic excuse for a life, why don't you?
Oh, I'll never run for you, bud.
Now, back to my Evidence for the existence of God.
I wish you would get back to it. I'm still waiting on you posting
any. But do please keep on making your hilarious, off-the-wall quips
- they're the only thing that make your messages worth reading.
You already received a heavy dose of evidence. You refuse to see evidence as an
indication of something. You demand proof, and I can't give it to you. But I did give
you evidence, and you didn't, nay couldn't, give anything for your position.
Only a complete asswipe would post a response claiming someone was
"stumped" in their tracks (what a quaint way you have with English.
Also the definition of one that cannot offer evidence for her own position.
And BTW, descriptions of the natural world do not a case for God make.
Get it?
God created everything. "Natural" is a great word for making a case for God. Get it?
So how about growing up, boy, and dealing with the fact that
you're a worthless piece of lying dogshit who is living under the
seriously mistaken belief that simply naysaying or deriding a message
is the same thing as responding to it with a refutation or a rebuttal?
And yet I have given and you can't.
Sorry but you can't dictate the rules. Evidence is evidence.
You are extraordinarily dense, aren't you? Are you, perchance, in the
Guinness Book of World Records for being the densest thing on the
planet?
Gosh, insult after insult driven by "no argument".
You're so obviously a liar. Why should anyone
believe you on this occasion?
Your eternal future.
You're claiming you've presented evidence but cannot offer any support
for this claim. What if I claim I've utterly refuted your evidence
every time you've posted any?
You haven't, you can't.
BTW, your claim, even if proven true, only if what you posted actually
is evidence!
Evidence is evidence.
No, you presented opinion, as I will demonstrate - again - which was
unsupported by anything, as I will demonstrate - again. This is
unsupported opinion, and it does not constitute evidence. Did you
sleep through Science 101? Is this how you came to be so appallingly
uninformed?
You have been given the chance over and over to offer an alternative. Your silence is
deafening.
As I and others have pointed out to you on several occasions (not that
these repeated illustrations could ever possibly permeate your thick
as pigshit hide), statements of your whacky, infantile beliefs do not
constitute evidence, and what I asked for, for those of you who are
congenital imbeciles, is **EITHER THE EVIDENCE OR A URL TO WHERE YOU
CLAIM YOU HAVE POSTED IT**.
URL = alt.atheism.
You got evidence, and lots of it.
Once again, buttwipe, I got your clueless and unsupported childish
opinions, as I will agiand emonstrate here, and foundationless
beliefs, not a shred of evidence, as I pointed out, and which you have
not even attempted to intelligently refute.
I'm waiting.
The same applies to this god of yours. Until and unless you actually
present **EVIDENCE** (as opposed to unsupported blind belief and
opinion, and descriptions of the natural world), there is no need for
me to do anything but laugh at you, which I do heartily every day that
i read your blather.
You laugh because you can't do anything else. You can't even begin to justify your own
position.
On the flood, I posted several URLs, none of which you have even
attempted to refute or rebut, so again, contrary to your pathetically
transparent lies, there is:
1. No detectable evidence that there ever was a global flood
Now there's a great reason to deny something that could have happened as much as 4
billion years ago.
and
2. Solid refutation of the Biblical flood myth.
Not so much as one word.
sorry, bud, but it's time you put up or shut up.
No, *****-up, you need to offer the **EVIDENCE** first, then I will
refute it.
You got it, and you can't.
He he. What a prize peach you are.
Eventually you will have to come up with a tiny bit of evidence, or admit you can't.
"Evidence is that which compells one to come to an evidence" Do you
have any clue what gibberish that is? Can I use it in my sig? And
'compels' has only one 'L', BTW.
Evidence is that which compels one to come to a conclusion.
"1. The belief that a supreme being is the creator
of the universe is based on a profession by those
that believe that is equal to, but no less than,
any profession that our universe exists for any
other alternative reason that can be imagined."
This is just a statement of personal belief: that your belief is on
par with that of those who understand that the universe arose
naturally.
So quote something yourself. And please, make it more reliable that "God did it".
There is no indication whatsoever that any god had any involvement in
this universe (at least after the Big Bang),
Not "after", but "before". God created the heavens and the universe, and everything in
it. It's the "natural".
"3. Medical science itself professes the human body
to reflect a "design with purpose".
This is just a statement of your belief. You offer no actual
**EVIDENCE** to support this claim.
No, doctors say that.
"4. The conception equation contained in animal forms
is divided 50% in the male and 50% in the female. We
only mix the chemicals."
What the heck is a conception equation? You fail to define exactly
what it is that is supposed to be divided 50/50,
Should I be surprised you don't know?
"5. ARC101: In the overall scheme of advancement in
relationships of life forms as we move from the least
to the greatest:"
By whose definition?
Intelligent people.
"Nor does the plant acknowledge,
in any fashion, it's awareness of the inanimate object."
BTE, since when has a rock been a life form?
The reason I call it inaminate.
Once again a statement of your beliefs that is backed up up by not a
single shred of support.
Even children know what a cow is.
"Man, on the other hand, has a full range of knowledge"
By what/whose criteria? How is this knowledge defined? How is "full
range" defined? How does this knowledge offer evdience of any god's
existence? Once again all we have is a statement of your beliefs and
not a shred of evidence for the existence of any god.
"and a clear relationship directed backward to the cow
including leading the cow by the nose, but the cow has
minimal upward reaction to the man"
What does this mean? How is this reaction defined? How does this
reaction or lack of it present evidence for the existence of any god?
Once again all we have is a statement of your beliefs and not a shred
of evidence for the existence of any god.
"other than the cow sees the man, but has no idea what
the man is or what the man does or why the man is there."
Again, you're over-simplifying things in the desperate hope that your
grim fairytale will go uncriticised.
Meaning you can't refute it.
"Notice how one level can relate backwards to a lower
level, but in the opposite higher level only in a very
rudimentary fashion. Yet each higher level not only
exists but exists "basically unknown" to the level
below it."
Again this is an unsupported statement of your beliefs. It offers not
a shred of evidence for the existence of any god, and it is not even
supported as a claim of itself. I presented examples of other
organisms, such as dophins and chimpanzees, which are nothing like
cows in their apprehension and behavior. You have faield to
intelligently address these flaws in your "thesis". Your claim seems
to rely on the farcical assumption that all animals behave and think
likes cows, which is transparently stupid.
Really, unsupported??? How about common observation.
"What, then, regarding the existence of a level higher than
the human? As is seen at each level, the inability, or
limited ability, to relate to the level above it does not
in any way negate its very existence."
But it does not predict such an existence, either,
That's why it's called logic and reasoning.
This is a non-sequitur. There is no reason whatsoever to make the
assine leap from one to the other and you haven't even supported your
ridiculous "argument" in the first place.
Did you hear the one about "the cow told the plant......."
"Does this negate the existence of such a level? Why should
we be able to relate upwards when lower life can't."
Precisely. This is where your childish "logic" fails dismally.
Rock solid.
" knowing we suffer"
You think animals don't know that they suffer?
Not "why".
You think animals don't know why they suffer? If they didn't know
why, they would not avoid predators and poisonous plants.
Breed type.
"How many levels are there above us? We don't know"
Finally you admit the truth - you don't know squat!
Is there something of intelligence you want to add to this conversation?
"one greater than man and one lesser than a supreme
being. Strangely enough, the "angel" fits the position
exactly, more than man but less than perfection."
So this makes Satan our intermediary with god.
No, the fallen angel.
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha! Holy Moley, you're a riot!
I'm waiting, bud.
Define "breed type", and explain how this refutes evolution.
Not refute, but sustains it.
Budikka - God wouldn't have given us the finger if he didn't want us
to use it in his name
Well, this was truly a nothing post on your part. When you have something to offer, come
back and we'll discuss.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Budikka" |
|
| Title: Re: Why did Mekkla run away from a discussion of Heb 8:7-13? |
28 Apr 2004 12:02:14 AM |
|
|
duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote in message news:<nbes80d3ma5el91f7icgrht30nfm8bmchg@4ax.com>...
Nah, bud - my newsreader (Agent) relects new messages
in color one time only. After that, nothing stands out.
That's what bookmarks are for, moron.
I couldn't find, because I couldn't remember, the thread title.
That's what Google news group searches are for, moron. I found it
right away:
http://tinyurl.com/2qmyz
Now you have no more excuses left.
You ran away like the chickenshit that you are are
because you couldn't come up with a respectable response. Leave your
mythical fairytale world and deal with the truth - with reality, for
once in your stinking, pathetic excuse for a life, why don't you?
Oh, I'll never run for you, bud.
Well you already did. You've been on the run since I started asking
you questions. I'm still waiting on this evidence for some god's
existence you said you could produce, but like everything else you
say, it was all lies, bluster, ***** and blather. All you gave was
what you believe, not what you can establish from fact or reasoned
argument based on fact. You didn't even get your descriptions right.
You already received a heavy dose of evidence.
What a complete ***** you are. I've already tediously explained to
you on numerous occasions that you're clueless about what evidence is,
but let's try one more time:
Evidence is not merely stating what you believe. All that is, is
merely stating what you believe. Get it now, imbecile? If you
disagree with this, then please do thrill us all by detailing how
listing your beliefs constitutes evidence for the existence of any
god, because I could then simply list my belief that there aren't any
gods, without offering a shred of evidence to back it up, and on that
basis alone, it would be a complete stalemate, and you would lose
since you failed to make the case you claimed you could make. Is that
what you want to do?
This is why EVIDENCE is different from belief, because evidence
supports a proclaimed belief and can be independently checked.
For example, if you had said, "I believe a lot of fire trucks are red"
then that could be SUPPORTED by showing some photos of fire trucks to
demonstrate that they are red. These photos would constitute
**EVIDENCE** supporting your **BELIEF**. Without the photos, all you
have is your **BELIEF**. Get it now?
Evidence is not merely describing the natural world or the universe.
All that is, is merely describing the natural world or the universe.
Get it now, imbecile? If you disagree with this, then please do
thrill us all by detailing how describing the natural world or the
universe constitutes evidence for the existence of any god.
For example, if two claimants were in court, each saying a particular
vehicle belonged to them, how would the case be decided? What if the
claimants each said the following:
Claimant 1. "The car is mine because it is yellow, with alloy wheels."
Claimant 2. "The car is mine because it is yellow, with alloy wheels."
Would the judge award the case to one or the other based on that?
Based on the fact that each claimant described the car? What if the
claimants each said, "Your Honor, I believe the car is mine" - would
the judge award it based on that? No - he would ask for supporting
*EVIDENCE*. If one of the claimants could then produce a pink slip
showing ownership, or a receipt showing they had paid for the car,
then this would constitute evidence, and the judge or jury could
decide the cased PROVEN BASED ON THE THE EVIDENCE SUBMITTED. Get it
now?
Evidence is not merely **CLAIMING** you've posted evidence and
consistently failing to reproduce either the evidence or URLs pointing
to it. Evidence is **ACTUALLY POSTING THE EVIDENCE OR URLS POINTING
TO IT**. Get it now, imbecile? If you disagree with this, then
please do thrill us all by **ACTUALLY POSTING THE EVIDENCE OR URLS
POINTING TO IT**.
How about this one: "tr.v. ev·i·denced, ev·i·denc·ing, ev·i·denc·es:
To indicate clearly; exemplify or prove."
Get it now, imbecile? Show me where any of the five points you listed
"indicates clearly" - that is UNAMBIGUOUSLY - that there is any god.
Show me, with supporting argument, where any of the five points you
listed exemplifies the work of some god rather than of natural
processes.
Oh, and do please notice that the word prove is actually in that
definition, but that I am not asking you to prove it, merely to offer
real evidence - that is something other than your blind belief and
bare descriptions of the natural world. Get it now?
You refuse to see evidence as an indication of something. You demand proof,
No, I **asked** for evidence. Here is what I asked for:
"No - there would actually have to have been a Christ who was the
miracle-working Son of God, who would have had to have been crucified
and then rise again in order for his image to be on the shroud, and
none of this has happened according to the (lack of) evidence."
(http://tinyurl.com/3xo82)
Note the word, "EVIDENCE"?
Here's how you headed your response:
"Evidence of God"
So the TRUTH is that I asked for evidence and you posted five
**BELIEFS** of yours and *descriptions of the natural world/universe*,
which you mistakenly believe constitute evidence. They do not, as I
have demonstrated.
If you were a defendant in court, and the prosecution put up a single
witness who stood up and said, I have no proof whatsoever, but I
honestly believe duke committed the crime, and you were found guilty
and sentenced on that testimony alone, would you consider that to have
been a fair trial? No, of course you wouldn't - unless you truly are
as stupid as you post.
The bottom line is that you are wrong and that's all there is to it!
So as of this message you have neither posted any evidence nor posted
URLs to where it can be found. If you cannot respond to this with
actual evidence or URLs to where it can be found, YOU LOSE.
But I did give you evidence, and you didn't,
nay couldn't, give anything for your position.
My position is that you have no evidence. That position (as the above
quote from me proves) has been consistent throughout this exchange.
The challenge never was for me to offer evidence but that there was no
evidence! It was you - smug, arrogant, clueless **YOU** who blathered
that you could offer it, so the onus has been entirely on you this
whole time. Lying about this and trying to shift the burden of proof
onto me does not change the **FACT** that I said there was no
evidence, you stood up and said you had some, and that what you
offered does not even begin to constitute evidence. EVIDENCE. NOT
PROOF. I NEVER ASKED FOR PROOF, AND I NEVER SAID WHAT YOU POSTED WAS
NOT PROOF. WHAT I SAID WAS THAT IT WAS NOT EVIDENCE! IT IS MERELY A
SERIES OF STATEMENTS DESCRIBING THE NATURAL WORLD, OR DESCRIBING YOUR
BELIEFS. This does not constitute evidence no matter how much you
desperately need it to and no matter how much you are prepared to lie
to yourself that it is. GET IT NOW, DIPSHIT?
In fact, what you offered was not even what I asked for, even had it
actually been evidence, because what the statement said (as the above
quote from me demonstrates) is that there is no evidence for Jesus,
not that there is no evidence for god. I could have made the same
comment about god's existence, but as it happened, it was about Jesus.
So not only have you offered no evidence (that is a series of
statements supported by fact and constructed to establish a solid case
for the existence of a god), you failed to address the original
assertion that there is no evidence for Jesus. I have let that slide,
but since you're being such a pissant twat about it, I may as well
smack your face up against that little fact, too.
Only a complete asswipe would post a response claiming someone was
"stumped" in their tracks (what a quaint way you have with English.
Also the definition of one that cannot offer evidence for her own position.
Again, we're awaiting your evidence. The position that there is
evidence was assumed by you when you responded to my post. You never
challenged me to offer evidence supporting my position, and actually I
did not originally ask you to provide evidence supporting yours. But
you came running out of the bullpen claiming you had evidence
supporting yours: "Yet all evidence basis logic, reason, and common
sense demand the existence of almighty God." was what you said. It
was from this point on that I have been asking you to produce the
evidence and all you've been offering is your blind beliefs and
descriptons of nature. So let me take up your challenge with the same
***** you offered me:
1. No evidence exists to support the belief that a supreme being is
the creator of the universe. This is why it is called "faith".
2. All avenues so far explored indicate that there was some sort of
"Big Bang" 13.7 billion years ago. What may or may not have existed
before that point is unknown. Some people convert this ignorance into
"knowledge", claiming it was a god who started it all, but no evidence
exists to support this blind belief.
3. The human body consists of a central computer (brain) supported by
a fluid transfer system (blood) forced along by a pump (heart), an
energy conversion system (stomach and intestines), a waste disposal
system, an oxygen transfer system (lungs) that is required to transfer
necessary oxygen to the brain and to the body parts, maintenance
organs (spleen, gall bladder, etc), and a body salinity (same as ocean
water) exactly correct as necessary for transfer of minute electrical
signals to/from the brain to operate and control the body. All of
this demonstrates evolution. There is no evidence to suggest it was
designed or created by any god.
4. The conception equation contained in animal forms is not divided
50%
in the male and 50% in the female. There are all kinds of
reproductive methods, the majority of which are asexual, and the one
humans use is in the minority. This is consistent with ecolution.
There is no evidence to suggest that reproduction was designed by any
god.
5. Evidence shows that organisms began in relatively simple form and
progressed to more complex forms (as defined by cell count) over a
huge amount of time. This is consistent with evolution and does not
match Biblcial creation stories. There is no evidence to suggest any
god was directly involved in evolution.
And BTW, descriptions of the natural world do not a case for God make.
Get it?
God created everything. "Natural" is a great word for making a case for God. Get it?
No - natural is the opposite of god, which is supernatural. If you
disagree, then please make a case for your position by describing
systems or organisms which could **ONLY** have come about through the
intervention of a supernatural agent. If you cannot do so, then your
argument fails.
And yet I have given and you can't.
Another all-too-obvious lie. You're going to have to do better than
this. "And yet I have given and you can't."? That's like spitting
into a bloodbank and insisting, "Well at least I gave something, what
did you do?" Youlre hilarious.
The fact of the matter is that it was **ME** who said there was no
evidence, and it was **YOU** who claimed you had evidence, not the
other way around. Please try to keep your eye on the ball. You
claimed you had EVIDENCE and you have offered none. Your claim was a
lie, because all you gave was a description of your belief. I already
knew what your belief was. Your description of it gave no new
information and nothing to support your belief, leaving you with
nothing but a blind belief. Blind belief is NOT EVIDENCE. IT IS
MERELY A DESCRIPTION OF WHAT YOU BELIEVE. What I had asked for was
evidence to establish that what you had was something more than simple
blind belief, and you failed to give anything. get it now?
Evidence is evidence.
You can chant this all you want and try to hypnotize yourself with it,
but once again, simply stating what you believe is not evidence.
URL = alt.atheism.
Ha ha ha! What a laugh riot you are! That's not a URL, that's the
name of a newsroup. Do you understand what a URL is? If not, refer
to the ones I've given in this message. (What were you saying about
who's given and who's not, now?) Maybe then you can post a real URL
that connects to **A SPECIFIC POST YOU HAVE MADE WHERE YOU GIVE ACTUAL
EVIDENCE AS OPPOSED TO BLIND BELIEF**
Get it now?
You laugh because you can't do anything else.
You can't even begin to justify your own position.
My own position rests entirely on the lack of evidence for the
existence of any gods, moron. It's the default position due to lack
of EVIDENCE. Get it now?
Even you and I agree on some things, duke. We agree there's a
universe, and a planet Earth in a solar system, and on Earth are
oceans and rivers and mountains and trees and birds and bees. But in
addition to all of this, **YOU** (not me) are claiming there's one
more thing. You're saying there is a god.
Because of the fact that you want to add this to what we see, you are
the one making the additional claim: that there is something more. It
is not incumbent upon me to prove anything. I am not claiming
anything in addition to what we both agree on. You are the one
claiming there is something more to add, and therefore it is incumbent
upon you to offer EVIDENCE to support this additional claim. And
you've failed.
Look at it another way (since you predictably won't get it). There is
something else that we agree on. That we should eliminate belief in
all gods for which there is no evidence. But when we get down to the
last god, I'm saying, "Here we are, only one more to eliminate.
There's no evidence for this one either, so out it goes."
But you disagree. You're saying to me, "Well I agree there is no
evidence for any of the other gods, so I'm not going to worship any of
those, but I'm making an exception for this last god, because you're
wrong in saying there's no evidence for it."
So what is it that *I* have to demonstrate? We've already agreed
there is no evidence for every other god in the pantheon. I've let
them all go on that basis. But you can't let that last one go, can
you? You've kissed all of them off but that last one and you're
insisting there's evidence for it.
You're not just saying, "Well I believe and that's all there is to
it!" If that's what you actually were saying, then your simple
statements of your belief would suffice. You re saying that your
belief somehow necessitates a god, but in order to go that far, you
have to offer evidence, otherwise it's just belief.
You're not just saying, "Earth is a certain way and I *believe* this
is because of god." If that's what you actually were saying, then
your simple statements of your belief would suffice. No, you're
saying that Earth is a certain way and this *IS* because of god, but
in order to go that far, you have to offer evidence, otherwise it's
just belief.
So what do we have here? Well we're back to where we started, where I
said there's no evidence and you said there is. So I am not the one
required to produce evidence that there's no evidence. You've
alrteady done that for me by failing to present any (thanks for your
help). Get it now?
1. No detectable evidence that there ever was a global flood
Now there's a great reason to deny something that could
have happened as much as 4 billion years ago.
So the total, utter, complete, and comprehensive absence of any
indication whatsoever of there being a global flood is insufficient
reason to accept that there was no flood? Is this what you call
logic? That a complete absence of evidence that something happened
actually proves something happened? And the Bible does not say it was
4 billion years ago. The Bible says it was about 5,000 years ago.
There were large civilizations on several continents 5,000 years ago.
None of them recorded a global flood. You lose.
and
2. Solid refutation of the Biblical flood myth.
Not so much as one word.
I gave you four URLs, you lying *****. Here they are for the third
time:
http://home.entouch.net/dmd/fld.htm
http://www.abarnett.demon.co.uk/atheism/noahs_ark.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/apr02.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/canopy.html
Did you even read them? Go ahead and read them and refute them or
shut your fucking useless mouth, *****. Not only dont;l you knwo
what evidence is, when you;re smacked repeatedly in the face with
contrary evidence, you;re too stupid to evne notice it.
sorry, bud, but it's time you put up or shut up.
No, *****-up, you need to offer the **EVIDENCE** first, then I will
refute it.
You got it, and you can't.
He he. What a prize peach you are.
Eventually you will have to come up with a tiny bit of evidence, or admit you can't.
"Evidence is that which compells one to come to an evidence" Do you
have any clue what gibberish that is? Can I use it in my sig? And
'compels' has only one 'L', BTW.
Evidence is that which compels one to come to a conclusion.
"1. The belief that a supreme being is the creator
of the universe is based on a profession by those
that believe that is equal to, but no less than,
any profession that our universe exists for any
other alternative reason that can be imagined."
This is just a statement of personal belief: that your belief is on
par with that of those who understand that the universe arose
naturally.
So quote something yourself. And please, make it more reliable that "God did it".
There is no indication whatsoever that any god had any involvement in
this universe (at least after the Big Bang),
Not "after", but "before". God created the heavens and the universe, and everything in
it. It's the "natural".
"3. Medical science itself professes the human body
to reflect a "design with purpose".
This is just a statement of your belief. You offer no actual
**EVIDENCE** to support this claim.
No, doctors say that.
"4. The conception equation contained in animal forms
is divided 50% in the male and 50% in the female. We
only mix the chemicals."
What the heck is a conception equation? You fail to define exactly
what it is that is supposed to be divided 50/50,
Should I be surprised you don't know?
"5. ARC101: In the overall scheme of advancement in
relationships of life forms as we move from the least
to the greatest:"
By whose definition?
Intelligent people.
"Nor does the plant acknowledge,
in any fashion, it's awareness of the inanimate object."
BTE, since when has a rock been a life form?
The reason I call it inaminate.
Once again a statement of your beliefs that is backed up up by not a
single shred of support.
Even children know what a cow is.
"Man, on the other hand, has a full range of knowledge"
By what/whose criteria? How is this knowledge defined? How is "full
range" defined? How does this knowledge offer evdience of any god's
existence? Once again all we have is a statement of your beliefs and
not a shred of evidence for the existence of any god.
"and a clear relationship directed backward to the cow
including leading the cow by the nose, but the cow has
minimal upward reaction to the man"
What does this mean? How is this reaction defined? How does this
reaction or lack of it present evidence for the existence of any god?
Once again all we have is a statement of your beliefs and not a shred
of evidence for the existence of any god.
"other than the cow sees the man, but has no idea what
the man is or what the man does or why the man is there."
Again, you're over-simplifying things in the desperate hope that your
grim fairytale will go uncriticised.
Meaning you can't refute it.
"Notice how one level can relate backwards to a lower
level, but in the opposite higher level only in a very
rudimentary fashion. Yet each higher level not only
exists but exists "basically unknown" to the level
below it."
Again this is an unsupported statement of your beliefs. It offers not
a shred of evidence for the existence of any god, and it is not even
supported as a claim of itself. I presented examples of other
organisms, such as dophins and chimpanzees, which are nothing like
cows in their apprehension and behavior. You have faield to
intelligently address these flaws in your "thesis". Your claim seems
to rely on the farcical assumption that all animals behave and think
likes cows, which is transparently stupid.
Really, unsupported??? How about common observation.
"What, then, regarding the existence of a level higher than
the human? As is seen at each level, the inability, or
limited ability, to relate to the level above it does not
in any way negate its very existence."
But it does not predict such an existence, either,
That's why it's called logic and reasoning.
This is a non-sequitur. There is no reason whatsoever to make the
assine leap from one to the other and you haven't even supported your
ridiculous "argument" in the first place.
Did you hear the one about "the cow told the plant......."
"Does this negate the existence of such a level? Why should
we be able to relate upwards when lower life can't."
Precisely. This is where your childish "logic" fails dismally.
Rock solid.
" knowing we suffer"
You think animals don't know that they suffer?
Not "why".
You think animals don't know why they suffer? If they didn't know
why, they would not avoid predators and poisonous plants.
Breed type.
"How many levels are there above us? We don't know"
Finally you admit the truth - you don't know squat!
Is there something of intelligence you want to add to this conversation?
"one greater than man and one lesser than a supreme
being. Strangely enough, the "angel" fits the position
exactly, more than man but less than perfection."
So this makes Satan our intermediary with god.
No, the fallen angel.
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha! Holy Moley, you're a riot!
I'm waiting, bud.
Define "breed type", and explain how this refutes evolution.
Not refute, but sustains it.
Budikka - God wouldn't have given us the finger if he didn't want us
to use it in his name
Well, this was truly a nothing post on your part. When you have something to offer, come
back and we'll discuss.
.
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: Why did Mekkla run away from a discussion of Heb 8:7-13? |
28 Apr 2004 05:54:54 PM |
|
|
On 27 Apr 2004 22:02:14 -0700, (Budikka) wrote:
Nah, bud - my newsreader (Agent) relects new messages
in color one time only. After that, nothing stands out.
That's what bookmarks are for, moron.
You ran and hid before I elected to bookmark, so I couldn't find it.
Well you already did. You've been on the run since I started asking
you questions. I'm still waiting on this evidence for some god's
existence you said you could produce, but like everything else you
say, it was all lies, bluster, ***** and blather. All you gave was
what y | | | | | | |
