Feed on Posts or Comments 10 February 2016

Christianity &Islam Thomas on 06 Jul 2013 12:04 am

The insanity of Christianity: Prayer edition

This article starts with the following inspirational paragraph:

Have you ever known someone who really trusts God? When I was an atheist, I had a good friend who prayed often. She would tell me every week about something she was trusting God to take care of. And every week I would see God do something unusual to answer her prayer. Do you know how difficult it is for an atheist to observe this week after week? After a while, “coincidence” begins to sound like a very weak argument.

Doesn’t that sound exciting? “Every week I would see God do something unusual to answer her prayer.”

If this is true, why doesn’t she pray to end cancer worldwide? Why doesn’t she pray to end world hunger? If God will do something unusual every week to answer her prayers, why not pray for something that will substantially improve life on earth for everyone? This is where the insanity comes in, as seen in this paragraph:

For those who do know him and rely on him, Jesus seems to be wildly generous in his offer: “If you remain in me and my words remain in you, ask whatever you wish, and it will be given you.”5 To “remain” in him and have his words remain in them means they conduct their lives aware of him, relying on him, listening to what he says. Then they’re able to ask him whatever they want. Here is another qualifier: “This is the confidence we have in approaching God: that if we ask anything according to his will, he hears us. And if we know that he hears us — whatever we ask — we know that we have what we asked of him.”6 God answers our prayers according to his will (and according to his wisdom, his love for us, his holiness, etc.).

What is hard to understand about, “ask whatever you wish, and it will be given you”? But it never happens when praying for anything real like a worldwide cure for cancer. Now a Christian has to explain why Jesus would say something that is wrong. So they say, “God answers our prayers according to his will (and according to his wisdom, his love for us, his holiness, etc.)” Which is to say that God answers zero prayers of substance. This is the insanity. Christians believe that God answers prayers, even though God never, ever answers concrete prayers that would improve life for everyone.

1,160 Responses to “The insanity of Christianity: Prayer edition”

  1. on 16 Sep 2013 at 1:20 am 1.alex said …

    801.A said …

    the other theists’ silence about you speak volumes on how they perceived you, you dumb, clueless, multiple sock parading pompous ass.

    your endless lies drip out of your mouth constantly without an end in sight. with your proven record of lying who you are, how should your fellow theists address you? asshole? lyingfuck? martinfuck? asstrofuck? which is it?

    my ilk doesn’t believe in your bullshit god and that’s all, you dumb motherfucker.

    allah will fuck you up. you like it?

  2. on 16 Sep 2013 at 1:42 am 2.michelle said …

    Anonymous,

    Well, I have to admit its easy for me to say it is easy to prove – because for me it was.

    It just occurred to me it will definitely be harder for others who don’t understand that somethings you will never understand or be able to explain when your logic and reasoning and scientific knowledge will never be enough to allow you to comprehend.

    You usually find things that you intentionally go looking for. If its there, you should be able to find it and that is if you sincerely wanted to find it. I could send my daughter to go find something and she most often doesn’t find it as it was not of much interest to her but in my desperation I was able to find it because I needed it more.

    I hope I’m making sense. Don’t you ever wonder that there has to be more to life than just being here,because you only end up dying and then what? some of us would have been better off if we weren’t here with all the struggles and the disappointments and the pain and stresses of life.

    Have you ever lost a loved one and felt the effects of it in your spirit. It leaves a literally empty spot in your heart or somewhere in your chest area but you can feel it and it stays there for about 2 years before it subsides and disappear.How do you explain that scientifically? I can’t see it and I can’t touch it but I can feel it. It’ not pain, but an emptiness and a void that I could not remove or fill with anything. We are spirit beings and there are things of the spirit that can only be understood by the spirit.

    “before its too late means before you die”

    I only know these things because my eyes were opened spiritually. Not physically or scientifically.

    There has to be someone or something greater or life is unnecessary.

  3. on 16 Sep 2013 at 2:00 am 3.alex said …

    “Have you ever lost a loved one and felt the effects of it in your spirit. It leaves a literally empty spot in your heart or somewhere in your chest area but you can feel it and it stays there for about 2 years before it subsides and disappear.”

    you just gave yourself away. even in your brainwashed state, you know deep down, death is final. no anticipated heavenly love and eternal bliss, will ever overcome that realization.

    you and i are going to cry at funerals because we both know the same thing, don’t we?

  4. on 16 Sep 2013 at 2:24 am 4.michelle said …

    Alex,

    I am sorry you feel the way you do. Please don’t judge me because you don’t even know me. I judge or condemn no one. I don’t know what your life story is and you don’t know mine.You might be surprised to know that I may have experienced much worse that you have.you probably feel that you have been through the worst and so you curse God and anyone or anything that reminds you of him.I use to blame God too so you don’t surprise me.

  5. on 16 Sep 2013 at 2:28 am 5.michelle said …

    Alex,

    sorry if you misunderstood my statement but death is not final. There is something greater whether or not you want to believe it.

  6. on 16 Sep 2013 at 2:39 am 6.michelle said …

    Alex,

    You missed the point I was trying to make.This can’t be all that there is to life. There has to be more and there is or else our lives are all in vain.

  7. on 16 Sep 2013 at 3:12 am 7.DPK said …

    “You missed the point I was trying to make.This can’t be all that there is to life. There has to be more and there is or else our lives are all in vain.”
    You have been lucky enough to have been born a sentient being and you fell that your entire life is in vain unless you get another one when this one is over?
    How terribly sad for you. I do feel story for you.

  8. on 16 Sep 2013 at 6:53 am 8.Angus and Alexis. said …

    Michelle said.
    “Angus and Alexis,
    may God forgive you because you know not what you say.”

    You mean the god that doesn’t exist?
    Why would i want nothing’s forgiveness?

  9. on 16 Sep 2013 at 6:59 am 9.Angus and Alexis. said …

    Michelle said.
    “You missed the point I was trying to make.This can’t be all that there is to life. There has to be more and there is or else our lives are all in vain.”

    So you are one of the most advanced species on earth, you have a literal super computer for a brain, you have the potential to do immense things…And you want more to life than everything…Selfish much?

  10. on 16 Sep 2013 at 9:56 am 10.freddies_dead said …

    769.A said …

    “Who claimed that it was? Not I”

    OK Freedie, you failed.

    Nope. I gave you exactly what you asked for. Your need to move the goalposts isn’t my problem.

    We will open the question to the field. Everyone knows Microevolution takes place since it is verifiable by the SM. I don’t need a fish fossil to prove the point. Now, lets see who can do the same for Macroevolution.

    29+ evidences over at TalkOrigins. Next…

    “I wonder if it’s true that atheism has become so obsessive for many, that it’s now functioning as a religion?”

    Absolutely! They have dogma, churches and their high priests. All the characteristics are present.

    What “dogma” are you referring to? The only thing you need to adhere to in order to be an atheist is to not believe in any Gods.

  11. on 16 Sep 2013 at 9:56 am 11.freddies_dead said …

    770.A said …

    “And just how has And just how has Tiktaalik failed A? Go on, enlighten us with your stunning knowledge of paleobiology and comparative anatomy failed A? Go on, enlighten us with your stunning knowledge of paleobiology and comparative anatomy”

    Biology and anatomy from a fossil? ROTFL!!!

    ROTFL indeed – at your ignorance. What do you think paleobiology is A? What do you think fossils actually show?

    Wow! You really are a sucker. Tiktaalik requires you to prove your claims.

    What claims? You asked for evidence of evolution found using the scientific method and I pointed out Tiktaalik which fulfills those criteria. It’s not my fault you don’t understand evolution or the scientific method well enough to understand how.

    I need do nothing since it is already going the way of Ada. You are welcome to try again.

    Good Luck.

    And here you are refusing to fulfill your burden of proof … again. It’s OK A, we know why. It’s because prayer is a complete and utter waste of time because your God does not exist. Don’t agree? Then present your evidence.

  12. on 16 Sep 2013 at 9:57 am 12.freddies_dead said …

    791.michelle said …

    Anonymous,

    If I didn’t know what I now know, it might have been easier for me to be accept something else. i consider myself privileged to have received the revelations that I have received.

    How do we distinguish between your claimed revelations and something you may merely be imagining?

  13. on 16 Sep 2013 at 11:36 am 13.Angus and Alexis. said …

    Michelle said.
    “sorry if you misunderstood my statement but death is not final. There is something greater whether or not you want to believe it.”

    Or, like a sane person who knows how “life” works, i say there is no life after death, the very statement of it contradicts the meaning of the words.

  14. on 16 Sep 2013 at 12:05 pm 14.Anonymous said …

    Michelle, you started off by saying it was easy to prove god. When asked how, you retreated to “it will definitely be harder for others who don’t understand that somethings you will never understand or be able to explain when your logic and reasoning and scientific knowledge will never be enough to allow you to comprehend”

    Which can be simplified to “you don’t understand that there things which can’t ever be understood”. But you are telling us that you understand what can’t be understood? How is this contradiction anything but mystical hand waving?

    Everything else seems to be you believing what you want to believe is true.

    In the end, you’ve offered no proof nor a way to find this god of yours other than believing what you want to believe. That’s pretty much what DPK suggested you’d say.

  15. on 16 Sep 2013 at 2:38 pm 15.freddies_dead said …

    So Michelle starts out saying it’s easy. Moves on to saying it’s hard to believe if you don’t first believe. Throws in an argument or two from emotion and finally finishes up with an argument from consequences.

    Well, I don’t know about anyone else, but I’m convinced *rolls eyes*

  16. on 16 Sep 2013 at 4:50 pm 16.DPK said …

    Yes, so it’s easy to believe once you decide to ignore anything that would make you doubt. Yeah, that makes sense. Then you feel that if your life doesn’t get to go on forever, then it has no point, so therefore there must be a god and an eternal life simply because you are terrified to die otherwise.
    Makes perfect theological sense.
    I wonder what happened to “proving god is easy if you really want to know…”
    I really want to know! Where is the proof?

  17. on 16 Sep 2013 at 7:35 pm 17.A said …

    “And just how has And just how has Tiktaalik failed A? Go on, enlighten us with your stunning knowledge”

    Glad to. The fish did not fail, your interpretation of the dead fish is s complete failure. You have not observed or proven macro evolution with your great find. Next!

    Lol!! You actually believe observing a fossil is observing macro evolution.

    hahahahahahhahhah hahahaha!!

    So when we observe DNA are we observing God’s work? Hmmmm?

  18. on 16 Sep 2013 at 9:16 pm 18.alex said …

    “You actually believe observing a fossil is observing macro evolution..”

    state the rules then, you dumb motherfucker. but you won’t because if you did, your squirm option is kaput.

    if zeus shoved a lightning bolt up your ass, would you believe? you won’t, because you’d just blather that the lightning bolt is not evidence. see how this shit works, you dumbfuck?

    what happened to your theist friends? oh, i forgot. you got a drawer full of them (socks).

  19. on 16 Sep 2013 at 9:25 pm 19.Anonymous said …

    little “a”
    “So when we observe DNA are we observing God’s work?”

    Kind of got that right. When we study our own DNA we are studying the DNA of god(s) creators. ;-)

    Strange, isn’t it, how similar our DNA is to that of a chimp, gorilla, orangutan? Are we observing the work of evolution? Some curious and tantalizing clues. Hmmmm…LOL. And why did god kill off Homo habilis and Australopithecus? WTF did they ever do? Maybe they didn’t get boarding passes for the ark…LOL.

  20. on 16 Sep 2013 at 10:14 pm 20.A said …

    ” Are we observing the work of evolution”

    That depends. Is that the name of your God with intelligence and the ability to write complex code?

    “Strange, isn’t it, how similar our DNA is to that of a chimp, gorilla, orangutan?”

    Strange? Not not at all. Why does that seem strange? Strange is lightning bolts and soup writing high information coding! Lol!!!!!!!

    “state the rules then”

    Sure, for the challenged I am glad to. The same level of proof you require for God. SO simple even a caveman can understand it. Lol!!!!

  21. on 16 Sep 2013 at 10:43 pm 21.alex said …

    “Sure, for the challenged I am glad to. The same level of proof you require for God.”

    ok asshole. creatures evolve from over 10,000+ years ago and that is indisputable. the young earth pile of shit as counted by the number of generations described in your bullshit bible adds up to what, 6000 years+? checkmate, pigeon motherfucker.

    what? dating errors? fossils placed by god? more motherfucking apologetic, bullshit excuses. fuck off.

  22. on 16 Sep 2013 at 10:50 pm 22.alex said …

    “The same level of proof you require for God.”

    a simple cheap-ass levitation trick would do it for me, you know, like the god david blaine. can your god do that?

    your own god standard has been met, you dumbfuck. david blaine is the one true god. go home, asshole.

  23. on 16 Sep 2013 at 11:54 pm 23.Anonymous said …

    Oh littlest of “a”s

    “Sure, for the challenged I am glad to. The same level of proof you require for God.”

    You said yourself that god is unfalsifiable; no “theory of god” exists. The Theory of Evolution is falsifiable. LOL!! Why don’t you have a go? What an idiot!!

  24. on 17 Sep 2013 at 12:03 am 24.Anonymous said …

    Mousey:
    “Strange, isn’t it, how similar our DNA is to that of a chimp, gorilla, orangutan?”

    And little “a”:
    “Strange? Not not at all. Why does that seem strange?”

    I thought a god would have given us “holy genes”. Something completely distinct from those knuckle dragging monkey men. Instead we’re almost genetically identical to a chimp. What was a god thinking? Seems strange, unless we’re distantly related, no?

  25. on 17 Sep 2013 at 12:12 am 25.Anonymous said …

    Little “a”
    “Strange is lightning bolts and soup writing high information coding”

    We both agree that the FIRST lifeforms were not zebras, humans, jellyfish, or sparrows. They were single celled!! Couldn’t some god-guy have cut to the chase and put the big boys on our planet from the start. Instead he acted much like nature.

    Pssst. Maybe you should tell NASA to stop wasting taxpayer dollars looking for life on Mars with that Curiosity thingy and life in the Universe with the Kepler thingy.

  26. on 17 Sep 2013 at 12:29 am 26.A said …

    “Instead he acted much like nature”

    ROTFL!!!! I about choked on primordial soup! Ok, ok, go ahead. Show me how God is like nature in producing this first single cell.

    The again, maybe you ate on to something. God acted much like nature? Hmmmmnm…..

    past!, hey mousey, why would I tell SETI to stop looking for life in the universe? What’s that go to do with your macro evolution or God?

    shhhhh …keep it down.

  27. on 17 Sep 2013 at 12:47 am 27.Anonymous said …

    Oh little “a”
    “past!, hey mousey, why would I tell SETI to stop looking for life in the universe?”

    Because we’re the ONLY special ones…sez so in the bible. Stupid eggheaded scientists looking for life elsewhere…..all they got to do is biblize themselves and everything will be alright. Oh, and pray. That is in keeping with the theme of the thread.

    “a”
    “What’s that go to do with your macro evolution or God?”

    Life cannot evolve unless it has started. Wonder why god would put life elsewhere (other than planet Earth)? Maybe it’s more of a natural process than we presently understand and know. This is where you, “a”, wager your faith on goddidit…LOL.

  28. on 17 Sep 2013 at 12:48 am 28.A said …

    “You said yourself that god is unfalsifiable”

    I did? HMMM, so how would you falsify the first being born in the hot soup?

    Lastly, If there is no TOG, why do you and the brethren keep asking for proof??????????

    lol!!!

  29. on 17 Sep 2013 at 2:36 am 29.Anonymous said …

    Little “a”
    “You said yourself that god is unfalsifiable”
    I did? HMMM, so how would you falsify the first being born in the hot soup?”

    Short term memory problems? Yes, you did. Not surprisingly you’re all over the map with what you do and don’t believe. Now when you say “first being”, are you talking about the first single celled organisms?

    little “a” again with a doozy:
    “Lastly, If there is no TOG, why do you and the brethren keep asking for proof??????????”

    Why do you keep asking for the same level of evidence for evolution as for god? You said a god was unfalsifiable after all. The Theory of Evolution just needs some razor sharp intellect like yours to shred it pieces. LOL!!

  30. on 17 Sep 2013 at 3:10 am 30.alex said …

    “If there is no TOG, why do you and the brethren keep asking for proof?”

    because a foreskin fetish god who obeys on command to maul name calling youths is kinda far fetched, ya think? of course it’s not, for morons like you?

  31. on 17 Sep 2013 at 6:50 am 31.Anonymous said …

    Hey, don’t forget you all were lamenting the lack of theists to debate with. One came along, yet with one post, Hor sucks the conversation off onto his favorite diversion.

  32. on 17 Sep 2013 at 9:33 am 32.freddies_dead said …

    817.A said …

    “And just how has And just how has Tiktaalik failed A? Go on, enlighten us with your stunning knowledge”

    Glad to. The fish did not fail, your interpretation of the dead fish is s complete failure.

    It’s not my interpretation of Tiktaalik, it’s the interpretation of actual scientists who understand the nature of fossils. You disagree with them obviously, but so far you given no indication as to what you believe they got wrong. Was it the fact that Tiktaalik was a lobe finned fish that you dispute? Or the fact that it displayed tetrapod characteristics which mark it out as a transitional form? Why won’t you tell us how all the scientists are wrong A? Don’t worry, we know why, it’s because you can’t.

    You have not observed or proven macro evolution with your great find. Next!

    I wasn’t asked to. You asked for evidence that supports evolution which was found using the scientific method and that’s exactly what Tiktaalik is. It’s not my problem that you don’t understand how, or, seemingly, what your own question entailed in way of an answer.

    Lol!! You actually believe observing a fossil is observing macro evolution.

    And just where have I stated such a thing? That’s right, nowhere. This is just you lying about the conversation … again. Instead I’ve pointed you to the 29+ evidences of observed speciation which is what you say you were expecting as an answer your current request for proof of macroevolution. Again, it’s not my problem that you don’t understand how or why they do. Maybe if you were prepared to “wade through” the evidence you’d get a clue.

    hahahahahahhahhah hahahaha!!

    So when we observe DNA are we observing God’s work? Hmmmm?

    Can you demonstrate the existence of a God and show how that deity was responsible for DNA? You act like you can but never get round to producing any evidence. Don’t worry, we know why.

  33. on 17 Sep 2013 at 9:33 am 33.freddies_dead said …

    828.A said … (to Anonymous)

    Lastly, If there is no TOG, why do you and the brethren keep asking for proof??????????

    To show anyone else who may be reading along that you don’t have any. Also it’s fun to watch you twist and squirm to avoid admitting that fact.

  34. on 17 Sep 2013 at 11:42 am 34.A said …

    “To show anyone else who may be reading along that you don’t have any.”

    Steady Freddy, you and mousey work that one out. If it is not falsifiable then its not science right? And besides, A&A states some things don’t need proof. Wouldn’t this be true? Hey, its just like ToE!

    lol!!! Twist! Twist!

  35. on 17 Sep 2013 at 12:15 pm 35.freddies_dead said …

    834.A said …

    “To show anyone else who may be reading along that you don’t have any.”

    Steady Freddy, you and mousey work that one out.

    Nothing to work out A, if you had any evidence you’d have presented it by now. Unless you’re still waiting for your God to answer your prayer for evidence? Don’t worry, we know why He hasn’t answered. It because He doesn’t exist and your prayer is a total and utter waste of time.

    If it is not falsifiable then its not science right?

    True, your Theory of God (which you refuse to elaborate upon) is not scientific, but we already knew this.

    And besides, A&A states some things don’t need proof.

    You appeal to authority is duly noted.

    Wouldn’t this be true? Hey, its just like ToE!

    Your Theory of God is nothing like the Theory of Evolution, not least because you haven’t yet elaborated on what your Theory of God actually is. Then we can take the 150+ years worth of evidence that supports the ToE and stack it against the absolutely zero amount of evidence adduced for your nebulous Theory of God; from that we can see that your theory is really nothing more than something you imagine while the ToE remains the best supported scientific theory in existence.

    lol!!! Twist! Twist!

    Let’s all watch A, the spasming fool. You’re going to sprain something if you’re not careful.

  36. on 17 Sep 2013 at 1:46 pm 36.Angus and Alexis. said …

    A said.
    “And besides, A&A states some things don’t need proof. ”

    Yes, “some” things.

    Anything involving magic and myths, no.
    Stuff like nuclear fusion, etc, yes.

    ” Hey, its just like ToE!”

    Except “ToE” has enough proof. For god?…well…theres the bible, for what nothing it is worth.

  37. on 17 Sep 2013 at 5:30 pm 37.Anonymous said …

    dear littlest “a”;
    “If it is not falsifiable then its not science right?”
    You’re a “science guy”, right? What do you think? Reality speaks for itself. It’s up to the observer to interpret the data. The mountain of evidence supporting evolution is good enough for me but not you. Go ahead, genius, falsify it. LOL!!

    “a”, again;
    “And besides, A&A states some things don’t need proof.”
    Some things are absolute. Faith in a god, for example. It cannot be proven nor dis-proven; hence it requires no proof. I do think that you’re finally getting it!! LOL!! Maybe, through prayer, your flavour of god is guiding you? ;-)

  38. on 17 Sep 2013 at 10:53 pm 38.A said …

    “The mountain of evidence supporting evolution is good enough for me but not you. Go ahead, genius, falsify it.”

    That is because you have a great deal of faith. If there were a mountain, well, there would be no controversy and you would have provided more than a fish.

    Lets see if you can give us a few goodies off this mountain, hmmm? OH, BTW, I don’t have a need to falsify, you must prove it. :). GOOD LUCK! lol!!

    Remember, magic and myths DO require proof. Agnus said so! Lol!!!

  39. on 18 Sep 2013 at 12:00 am 39.Angus and Alexis. said …

    “That is because you have a great deal of faith.”

    Or, due to your own ignorance and brain washing, you fail to see the evidence as it conflicts with your worldview?

    “Lets see if you can give us a few goodies off this mountain, hmmm?”

    Freddie has linked you one of the best sites that deals with evolution, it is a fact that you dismissed it.

    “Remember, magic and myths DO require proof. Agnus said so!”

    Wow, really?
    Is your ability to comprehend text that bad?
    Let me link what i posted.

    A&A said.
    “Anything involving magic and myths, no.
    Stuff like nuclear fusion, etc, yes.”

    In that sentence, no was used for a double negative.

    Please tell me how “no” becomes “yes”.

    If it involves magic, your going to have to show it, or it is dismissed.
    If it has enough knowledge on the topic, like fusion, but cant be tested, it can still be proven.

  40. on 18 Sep 2013 at 12:03 am 40.alex said …

    “That is because you have a great deal of faith. If there were a mountain, well, there would be no controversy and you would have provided more than a fish.”

    yeah, motherfucker. this proves that your god allah is the real deal, doesn’t it? what a fucking dumbass.

  41. on 18 Sep 2013 at 12:43 am 41.Anonymous said …

    dearest little “a”
    “If there were a mountain, well, there would be no controversy”

    You jumping up and down, fingers in ears, screaming “It ain’t so” does NOT constitute a controversy. There are still people who think the world is flat and man never visited the moon. All these folks have something in common with you…LOL!!! You and them operate in the margins of reality, the fringes of society. They’re often seen walking aimlessly in major cities wearing “The world will end” or whatever their grief is sandwich boards. Congratulations!!!!

    Little “a”
    “Remember, magic and myths DO require proof.”

    True that..NOT!! Why are you shifting gears and going back to a discussion on god? Oh yeah, the thread topic is about prayer and god. But, really, you don’t have to prove anything, just blindly accept (and pray, of course). Isn’t that the way it works? LOL!!!

  42. on 18 Sep 2013 at 7:01 am 42.Angus and Alexis. said …

    Myself said…*sigh*

    ““Remember, magic and myths DO require proof. Agnus said so!”
    Wow, really?
    Is your ability to comprehend text that bad?
    Let me link what i posted.
    A&A said.
    “Anything involving magic and myths, no.
    Stuff like nuclear fusion, etc, yes.”
    In that sentence, no was used for a double negative.
    Please tell me how “no” becomes “yes”.”

    Yeah…
    Some how i comprehended A’s message saying magic does not require proof…

    Please ignore my previous message.

  43. on 18 Sep 2013 at 3:37 pm 43.A said …

    “You jumping up and down, fingers in ears, screaming “It ain’t so” does NOT constitute a controversy”

    Oh then we are done. Because many more people believe in God than believe man evolved out of Campbell”s soup those O so many years ago.

    So there we have it. Keep jumping up and down crying mousey…..lol!!!!

  44. on 18 Sep 2013 at 4:07 pm 44.DPK said …

    Oh then we are done. Because many more people believe in God than believe man evolved out of Campbell”s soup those O so many years ago.

    Not true… believing in god does not mean you deny the obvious FACT of evolution. Even the fucking pope accepts evolution as a fact. But yeah, thank whatever gods you believe in that now you are done beating your dead horse with this irrelevant diversion. Can we hold you to that, Hor? Except for the lunatic fringe, the “controversy” as you claim it, over evolution was settled by the rational world, theistic and atheistic, long ago.

    Now back to the actual topic… prayer? Got any reason for us to believe it actually does anything?

  45. on 18 Sep 2013 at 6:03 pm 45.Anonymous said …

    littlest dearest “a”:
    “many more people believe in God than believe man evolved out of Campbell”s soup those O so many years ago.”

    Hey “science guy”, mixing abiogenesis with evolution again. How clueless can you be…not much more than yourself. At least we can both agree that life started with simple single celled organisms, whether goddidit or nature.

  46. on 19 Sep 2013 at 1:45 am 46.Angus and Alexis. said …

    As DPK said, shall we move onto Prayer?

    A, do you, or do you not believe in prayer?

  47. on 19 Sep 2013 at 2:02 am 47.A said …

    “Hey “science guy”, mixing abiogenesis with evolution again.”

    Absolutely! Macroevolution is not possible without an origin and they both have the same amount of evidence to support them. Really very little difference.

    Now if you would like to provide evidence that fits the SM……..oh never mind, all you can do is cut & paste links. You don’t even know why you believe….lol!!!!

  48. on 19 Sep 2013 at 3:42 am 48.alex said …

    “You don’t even know why you believe….lol!!!!”

    you’re a confirmed dumbshit, 20x over. i believe in eating desserts before my meals and i don’t know why.

    how the fuck does that prove the bullshit prayer or god.

    you’ve been told before. your god nonsense is not tolerated any more. go fuck thyself.

  49. on 19 Sep 2013 at 4:39 am 49.Angus and Alexis. said …

    Can we please start the topic of prayer, we already know A has no understanding of evolution.

    But secondly, evolution is irrelevant, atheists do not need to believe in it.

    So, A, do you believe in prayer or not?

    (alex, DPK, etc, can you start on prayer too?)

  50. on 19 Sep 2013 at 1:18 pm 50.freddies_dead said …

    847.A said …

    You don’t even know why you believe….lol!!!!

    A’s back to making autobiographical statements again. Hey A, just why do you believe? Do your prayers actually work? If so any evidence to show it?

  51. on 19 Sep 2013 at 3:06 pm 51.A said …

    “you’ve been told before. your god nonsense is not tolerated any more”

    oh No!! We have tough guy behind the laptop. Alex, it dies not matter if you tolerate it It will continue until I am done. If you don”t like it to can leave.

    “If so any evidence to show it?”

    I’m not sure. You have never established the nature of evidence. Do you mean like a fish fossil is observational science for macro evolution type proof?

  52. on 19 Sep 2013 at 3:41 pm 52.freddies_dead said …

    851.A said …

    “If so any evidence to show it?”

    I’m not sure.

    Unsurprising as you’ve only ever shown complete ignorance regarding the nature of evidence.

    You have never established the nature of evidence.

    Another autobiographical statement.

    Do you mean like a fish fossil is observational science for macro evolution type proof?

    Word salad. It’s still amusing to see you twist and turn in your pathetic attempts to avoid answering questions about prayer.

    So I’ll ask again – just why do you believe? Do your prayers actually work? If so any evidence to show it?

  53. on 19 Sep 2013 at 4:04 pm 53.alex said …

    “oh No!! We have tough guy behind the laptop. Alex, it dies not matter if you tolerate it It will continue until I am done. If you don”t like it to can leave.”

    so you’re saying you’re tolerate here? where’s the love, you dipshit?

  54. on 19 Sep 2013 at 8:14 pm 54.A said …

    “If so any evidence to show it?”

    I’m not sure. You have never established the nature of evidence. Do you mean like a fish fossil is observational science for macro evolution type proof?

    See if you can focus this time dead-Fred.

  55. on 19 Sep 2013 at 9:29 pm 55.alex said …

    “I’m not sure. You have never established the nature of evidence”

    david blaine is god, you dipshit. levitating is cake for a god. nobody’s asking for the camel thru a needle shit.

    you ain’t got shit, motherfucker and you know it. what, more toe? ocean swimming? dumbass.

  56. on 19 Sep 2013 at 11:36 pm 56.Anonymous said …

    tiniest little “a”:
    “Do you mean like a fish fossil is observational science for macro evolution type proof?”

    For starters, it’s more than the evidence for god. Oh wait, you think god created the fish. Just like all species rose from mud…right? LOL!! What a moron.

  57. on 19 Sep 2013 at 11:59 pm 57.alex said …

    “Oh wait, you think god created the fish.”

    DAGON right, you know the fish god. the resident has a matching god for each one of his bullshit socks.

    up next, more ad hominem, strawman, appeal to authority, courtesy from asshole hisself.

    where is he? the motherfucker’s late.

  58. on 20 Sep 2013 at 2:09 am 58.40 Year Atheist said …

    Richard Dawkins responding to the questions of a (friendly) interviewer last week. As with all quotes, they are out of context, so for the full interview and context, go to “the not so angry evolutionist”.

    “It is utterly remarkable that DNA is a scientific digital code. It’s text, it’s exactly like written human language, with letters – you can actually count the number of letters. It means you could really compare every animal with every other animal, or plant, or bacterium, letter by letter, word by word, in their actual genetic text.”
    Let’s review. DNA is a scientific code, exactly like written human language; therefore there is neither intelligence nor design involved? Dawkins once made the most ignorant statement I think I have ever heard. Paraphrased, he said, “No engineer in his right mind would use previously existing designs to base his design upon”. In actuality, every engineer would and does leverage off of previous designs (that are not IP protected). An engineer who did not do so would lose his job, it is that stupid.

    Dawkins feels comfortable backfilling opinion into slots that should be reserved for verifiable evidence. This is called rationalization in the world of Logic and Rational Thinking. It is, however, actually the method of forensic sciences: make an observation (say, a new fossil) and then make up a story about it. It is rampant in offshoots of evolutionary science such as evolutionary psychology.


    “The genetics of Darwin’s time was completely wrong, apart from Gregor Mendel, who was a contemporary of Darwin. But unfortunately Darwin never read his works. Even Mendel was surpassed in a very big way by Watson and Crick, and the molecular biology revolution of the last half of the 20th century – which has now made genetics into a branch of information technology. And this has enormously increased the sheer weight of evidence in favor of Darwin. Darwin would simply have loved that.
    A branch of information technology? He finally admits that there is information in the code… It used to be common to hear that it wasn’t information, it was just random code that happened randomly, then randomly changed, got tested by the environment, and stuck if it passed the test.

    And never, ever discussed is the source of the code, nor the probability of the code describing a living thing existing inside the living thing…nor the paradox of which came first, the code or the critter.


    “The point about the detective and the crime-scene analogy is not that the information is incomplete, or not 100 percent. It can indeed be – if not 100 percent, then 99.99 percent. The point is that it’s not eyewitness evidence. You can’t actually see a murder taking place. You can’t actually see most of evolution taking place, obviously, because it happened in the distant past. But the evidence for a crime can be exceedingly strong, even without eyewitness evidence.

    Eyewitness evidence is actually not the most powerful evidence anyway. Eyewitness evidence even in human crimes is notoriously poor. Eyewitnesses get all sorts of things wrong.”
    Dissing eyewitness evidence is extremely odd for a scientist; science methods depend heavily upon experimental evidence (eyewitness), and replication (eyewitness). But he is right in saying that “it’s not eyewitness evidence” with regard to evolution. Yes, that is correct; it is not empirical, experimental, replicable evidence, it is inferential, extrapolatory, story telling. The incontrovertable evidence that exists is (a) a genetic code of indeterminate origin; (b) fossils (without genetic material) of animals that no longer exist. Everything else is inferential – a made up story.


    “Another big stumbling block is that an awful lot of people think evolution is a theory of random chance. It isn’t. If it really were a situation of random chance, of course it wouldn’t work. Any fool can see that. Natural selection is the very opposite of random chance. Natural selection is non-random survival of genes that work.”
    This is almost too false to believe that it came from an educated person. Evolution is most certainly based on random changes (mutations) to genetic workings, changes that might just happen (randomly) to bring into existence new beneficial characteristics for survival in a changing environment. Any fool who educates himself can see that.

    But I gotta love that quote:”If it really were a situation of random chance, of course it wouldn’t work. Any fool can see that.”


    “That was a technique that Darwin himself used. Everybody understands domestic breeding, and everybody can see the dramatic consequences of breeding dogs, for example, which came from wolves not that long ago. So you can see a lot of evolutionary change packed into just a few centuries. All you then do, if you’re explaining it as Darwin did, is just remove the human breeder and let nature do it instead.

    Nature does it inadvertently, unconsciously, non-deliberately – by some animals surviving and some not surviving. That is the precise analog to the role of the domestic breeder choosing which puppies to breed from.”
    The “Big Dog/Little Dog = Evolution” Fallacy is still false. See the next item.


    “The human mind partitions the world into essential objects: “A rabbit is a rabbit is a rabbit. There’s an unbridgeable gulf fixed between a rabbit and any other species.” People can’t grasp the idea that it’s not true that a rabbit is a rabbit is a rabbit. It gradually changes over time. There’s a constantly sliding definition of what it is to be a typical rabbit. That goes for any species.”
    Conflating the idea of “atypical” with mutated creatures that are no longer the same species is a staple in the evolutionist bag of tricks. It’s a gloss over the massive probability against such beneficial mutations.

  59. on 20 Sep 2013 at 2:25 am 59.alex said …

    hor/ass/40year/dickhead in the house with more of his bullsheyatt copy/paste from his own site.

    yeah, that’s right, motherfucker. no more tolerating your ass. go stick the crucifix.

    as predicted, more ad hominem, strawman, appeal to authority. switching socks ain’t gonna help with the lingering theist bullshit smell.

    i’m gonna start charting your posts motherfucker, and then i will scientifically predict your next bullshit.

  60. on 20 Sep 2013 at 6:52 am 60.Angus and Alexis said …

    858.40 Year Atheist sa-

    Whoa, hold on there…
    A comes back with a puppet he was already caught out from?
    Seriously what the hell?

  61. on 20 Sep 2013 at 10:27 am 61.freddies_dead said …

    854.A said …

    “If so any evidence to show it?”

    I’m not sure.

    Unsurprising as you’ve only ever shown complete ignorance regarding the nature of evidence.

    You have never established the nature of evidence.

    Another autobiographical statement.

    Do you mean like a fish fossil is observational science for macro evolution type proof?

    Word salad. It’s still amusing to see you twist and turn in your pathetic attempts to avoid answering questions about prayer.

    See if you can focus this time dead-Fred.

    I’m perfectly focused A. All your remarks – the ones that were coherent anyway – were answered as usual, but also as usual you’ve tried to twist and dodge your way out of answering any of the questions asked of you.

    So I’ll ask again – just why do you believe? Do your prayers actually work? If so any evidence to show it?

  62. on 20 Sep 2013 at 11:13 am 62.40 Year Atheist said …

    “It is, however, actually the method of forensic sciences: make an observation (say, a new fossil) and then make up a story about it. It is rampant in offshoots of evolutionary science such as evolutionary psychology.”

    40YA,

    That can’t be true. The atheists here who are very bright young men claim we have proven the ToE; it is fact. I am still attempting to get the proof from them so we can determine their view of the nature of evidence.

    I’m sure the proof is coming……lol!!!

  63. on 20 Sep 2013 at 11:35 am 63.Angus and Alexis said …

    Congratulations A, you replied to yourself again…

  64. on 20 Sep 2013 at 11:42 am 64.freddies_dead said …

    Oh dear A. I guess God didn’t answer your prayer about not being outed as a lying scumbag sock puppeteer … again.

    The fact that you quoted yourself lying about what forensic science actually is just heightens the amusement.

  65. on 20 Sep 2013 at 11:53 am 65.freddies_dead said …

    862.40 Year Atheist (otherwise known as A) said (to himself) …

    That can’t be true.

    Because it’s not. Forensic science isn’t about “making shit up” that’s the purview of theology.

    The atheists here who are very bright young men claim we have proven the ToE; it is fact.

    Actually we’ve demonstrated that the process of evolution is fact and that the ToE is the best explanation of how it happens.

    I am still attempting to get the proof from them so we can determine their view of the nature of evidence.

    That you don’t like the outcome of the discussion, i.e. that evolution happens and the ToE describes how, is no excuse for lying about the evidence already presented to you.

    I’m sure the proof is coming……lol!!!

    Having already presented you with the evidence you asked for there are 2 possible conclusions we can come to in light of your claim to still be waiting for evidence.

    Either:
    a) You don’t understand evidence.
    b) You do understand evidence and you’re deliberately lying about having been presented with it.

    Which is it A?

    And while you’re answering questions you can have a go at these:

    Just why do you believe?
    Do your prayers actually work?
    If so any evidence to show it?

  66. on 20 Sep 2013 at 12:28 pm 66.Angus and Alexis said …

    Freddie said.
    “And while you’re answering questions you can have a go at these: *snip*”

    Heck, the guy hasn’t even said whether or not he believes in prayer, shall we start there?

  67. on 20 Sep 2013 at 12:58 pm 67.A40Y-HorX said …

    Congratulations, A, you replied to yourself again…”

    Duh!!, I am everyone on the blog so why not play the roll. Lol!!!! My creativity is aroused!

    “ToE is the best explanation of how it happens.”

    Prove it, opinion is not acceptable.

  68. on 20 Sep 2013 at 1:13 pm 68.Angus and Alexis said …

    A mutant monster of a sock puppet said.
    “Duh!!, I am everyone on the blog so why not play the roll. Lol!!!! My creativity is aroused!”

    So you openly admit to using several accounts in a debate? Making your arguments particularly invalid?

    “Prove it, opinion is not acceptable.”

    Done to death, next question?

    Do you believe in prayer or not?

  69. on 20 Sep 2013 at 1:52 pm 69.freddies_dead said …

    867.A40Y-HorX said …

    “ToE is the best explanation of how it happens.”

    Prove it, opinion is not acceptable.

    Already been done and answering your request again is a pointless exercise. You’re not going to examine any evidence presented to you and it’s that evidence – the evidence that you refuse to “wade through” – that proves it A. I’ve already tried to get you to look at just a tiny bit of that evidence and you dismissed it without reason. I won’t be bothering again; pearls before swine and all that.

    Now, prayer.

    Do your prayers actually work?
    If so any evidence to show it?
    Just why do you believe in a God?

  70. on 20 Sep 2013 at 3:33 pm 70.A40Y-HorX said …

    “You’re not going to examine any evidence presented to you’

    Sure I do. We discussed the fish and determined it is not observational proof of speciation. It is proof a fish once existed. What else do you have?

    Hey, here is a great question. Do u go on evolution websites asking for proof of speciation? Just why do you believe mud created a cell?

  71. on 20 Sep 2013 at 4:57 pm 71.Angus and Alexis said …

    A said.
    ” Just why do you believe mud created a cell?”

    Stop mixing evolution with abiogenesis.

  72. on 20 Sep 2013 at 5:08 pm 72.Anonymous said …

    Stop feeding the troll?

    It doesn’t matter how many times you bust him, as long as anyone is willing to be baited by his deliberate provocation, he’ll keep bringing up the same strawman, make the same demands, and avoid answering your questIons.

  73. on 20 Sep 2013 at 6:32 pm 73.A40Y-HorX-Troll said …

    I abbreviated so as not to take another’s handle but to eliminate another diversion by the atheist attention challenged.

    “Stop mixing evolution with abiogenesis.”

    Oh A&A, so young and so challenged. They are not being mixed, they are equally faith based beliefs your ilk embrace. Abio is just one of many theories offered on the origins the issue.

    hey, but I am easy to please. Prove ToE or prove Abio. I will meet the level of proof for God you can provide for either.

    PS: You do know ToE is dependent on origins to answer where the first life originated, right?

    Good Luck!

  74. on 21 Sep 2013 at 1:50 am 74.Angus and Alexis said …

    A said.
    “PS: You do know ToE is dependent on origins to answer where the first life originated, right?”

    PSS: you do know that ToE does not explain where first life originated, right?

    Now, do you believe in prayer or not, a simple yes or nor would suffice.

  75. on 21 Sep 2013 at 2:25 am 75.Anonymous said …

    dearest “a”
    “I am easy to please. Prove ToE or prove Abio. I will meet the level of proof for God you can provide for either.”

    LOL!!!! easy to please? If you say so. Once the noose tightens you’l drop off like and vanish into the ether. Becoming invisible — just like your god.
    So let’s try and concentrate on prayer. Do you believe that when YOU pray that YOU are directly communicating with god? Since god knows and sees all, the point of prayer would seem moot to a god. Maybe it’s something performed for the comfort of the prayer? Agree or disagree?

  76. on 21 Sep 2013 at 6:42 am 76.alex said …

    “I abbreviated so as not to take another’s handle…”

    lyin bitch ass motherfucker. you replied to yourself because you’re a dumbfuck, never mind a theist. you got busted as usual and now you’re making up more shit and that you’re everybody. you think anybody in here is buying your shit?

    you’re just a pathetic fool. go fuck yourself.

  77. on 22 Sep 2013 at 3:56 am 77.Angus and Alexis said …

    Now, A, do you believe in prayer or not? A simple yes or nor would suffice.

    May we start being on topic for once?
    We have been derailed for like…300 messages…

  78. on 23 Sep 2013 at 10:10 am 78.freddies_dead said …

    870.A40Y-HorX said …

    “You’re not going to examine any evidence presented to you’

    Sure I do. We discussed the fish and determined it is not observational proof of speciation. It is proof a fish once existed. What else do you have?

    Hey, here is a great question. Do u go on evolution websites asking for proof of speciation? Just why do you believe mud created a cell?

    You’re not going to examine any evidence presented to you and it’s that evidence – the evidence that you refuse to “wade through” – that proves it A. I’ve already tried to get you to look at just a tiny bit of that evidence and you dismissed it without reason. I won’t be bothering again; pearls before swine and all that.

    Now, prayer.

    Do your prayers actually work?
    If so any evidence to show it?
    Just why do you believe in a God?

  79. on 23 Sep 2013 at 5:53 pm 79.A40Y-HorX-Troll said …

    “I’ve already tried to get you to look at just a tiny bit of that evidence”

    The fish? Seriously this is your evidence? You expect me to cast my pearls before a guy that considers a fossilized fish as proof? That’s the best you have?

    Right! Lol!!

    Just why do you believe in macroevolurion? Faith?

  80. on 24 Sep 2013 at 2:46 am 80.alex said …

    “macroevolurion”

    what is the name of the blog, you dumb motherfucker?

    is it, why won’t evolution heal amputees? whether or not anybody believes in evolution, dark matter, or santa claus is totally irrelevant, you dumbass, schitzo. your god is bullshit. repeat after me. god is bullshit.

  81. on 24 Sep 2013 at 10:30 am 81.freddies_dead said …

    879.A40Y-HorX-Troll said …

    “I’ve already tried to get you to look at just a tiny bit of that evidence”

    The fish? Seriously this is your evidence? You expect me to cast my pearls before a guy that considers a fossilized fish as proof? That’s the best you have?

    Right! Lol!!

    As already noted, you don’t understand the evidence or what it says about evolution, that’s not my problem.

    Just why do you believe in macroevolurion? Faith?

    Nope, the evidence.

    However, you’re not going to examine any evidence presented to you and it’s that evidence – the evidence that you refuse to “wade through” – that proves it A. I’ve already tried to get you to look at just a tiny bit of that evidence and you dismissed it without reason. I won’t be bothering again; pearls before swine and all that.

    Now, prayer.

    Do your prayers actually work?
    If so any evidence to show it?
    Just why do you believe in a God?

  82. on 24 Sep 2013 at 9:12 pm 82.A40Y-HorX-Troll said …

    Prayer?

    you don’t understand the evidence or what it says about prayer, that’s not my problem.

    Let me know if you decide to provide actual proof for macroevolution. I will meet the same bar you provide.

    lol!! You actually use a Bible verse to avoid providing proof for your faith. Irony..

  83. on 24 Sep 2013 at 10:40 pm 83.alex said …

    “Let me know if you decide to provide actual proof for macroevolution.”

    ok, motherfucker, you win. a god created the universe. back on topic. you got any proof that this dipshit god of yours, answer prayers? no? didn’t think so, you fucking diversionary asshole.

  84. on 24 Sep 2013 at 11:46 pm 84.alex said …

    i’m prayin to allah that the dipshit motherfucker, aka, martin/ass/hor/etc shows hisself and deliver the proof that prayer works. if he does show up with the proof, would it be double proof? my prayer worked and his proof? yeah, right…

  85. on 25 Sep 2013 at 7:01 am 85.Angus and Alexis. said …

    A said.
    “you don’t understand the evidence or what it says about prayer, that’s not my problem.”

    Err, what evidence?
    You have not answered any questions about prayer.

    “Let me know if you decide to provide actual proof for macroevolution. I will meet the same bar you provide.”

    Macroevolution is irrelevant, now post prayer, for it is relevant.

    “You actually use a Bible verse to avoid providing proof for your faith. Irony..”

    Not sure what this is getting at, theists tend to post bible verses as proof.

  86. on 25 Sep 2013 at 9:46 am 86.freddies_dead said …

    882.A40Y-HorX-Troll said …

    Prayer?

    Yes prayer, the topic of the thread.

    you don’t understand the evidence or what it says about prayer, that’s not my problem.

    You haven’t presented any evidence yet, that’s definitely your problem.

    Let me know if you decide to provide actual proof for macroevolution. I will meet the same bar you provide.

    Already done but I see you’re still lying about it to try and avoid meeting your own burden of proof.

    lol!! You actually use a Bible verse to avoid providing proof for your faith. Irony..

    I don’t have faith in evolution, I have all the evidence I need. I’ve even presented you with some of that evidence and you’ve wilfully refused to examine it. Which leaves you having to lie about the evidence, such as you are doing now. Of course Christianity – you do consider yourself a Christian don’t you? – has a pretty strict rule about lying, but Christians, it seems, can find no way to defend their faith except by lying. Ironic indeed.

    Now, back to prayer.

    Do your prayers actually work?
    If so any evidence to show it?
    Just why do you believe in a God?

  87. on 25 Sep 2013 at 5:13 pm 87.A40Y-HorX-Troll said …

    “You haven’t presented any evidence yet, that’s definitely your problem”

    Nope not my problem. I presented exactly the amount of evidence you provided.

    “Just why do you believe in a God?”

    Because of all the evidence silly.

    Now why do you believe in macroevolution with no proof? Are you not the “Facts Only” cult? Lol!!!!

  88. on 25 Sep 2013 at 6:17 pm 88.Anonymous said …

    littlest dearest “a”
    “Facts Only”

    Whenever a set of facts is presented, you’ll tuck your tail in and flee. You’re gone as quick as a fart in a windstorm. Or you’ll duck, dodge, weave, and act generally pissy or upset. It’s been done before:

    Watch: What is the age of our planet Earth? After all, discussions of origins should include timelines. Don’t refer us to a website. State a date. This should get the ball rolling….or maybe NOT.

    See ya little “a”. Gone without a trace when the facts come out.

  89. on 25 Sep 2013 at 6:32 pm 89.A40Y-HorX-Troll said …

    “Whenever a set of facts is presented, you’ll tuck your tail in and flee.”

    Is that why you will not present any evidence?I promise not to leave but…..Hey,lets test it and see mousey!

    Begin with this, using the SM, prove macro evolution is true.

    I’m excited, got the popcorn back out. cbmp chmp!

  90. on 25 Sep 2013 at 6:40 pm 90.Anonymous said …

    littlest “a”; the games have begun;
    “Begin with this, using the SM, prove macro evolution is true.”

    Forgot to answer the question? What question? See above.

  91. on 25 Sep 2013 at 6:45 pm 91.A40Y-HorX-Troll said …

    mousey! Are you just another tease? Lets try again for the 100th time.

    Begin with this, using the SM, prove macro evolution is true.

  92. on 25 Sep 2013 at 6:52 pm 92.Anonymous said …

    littlest “a”:
    A disappointing refusal to engage, yet again. He wants to talk facts, but it’s just talk on his part – all sizzle and no steak!!
    There you have it folks!! Littlest “a” is scared of stating the simplest of facts – the age of our Earth – for fear of slipping a noose around his pencil thin neck. Facts scare him.

  93. on 26 Sep 2013 at 1:31 am 93.A40Y-HorX-Troll said …

    “He wants to talk facts,are him.”

    True,

    Begin with this, using the SM, prove macro evolution is true? Simple, straightforward and with all of our species, should be a great deal of evidence, right?……….hmmmm, maybe not. Mousey can’t provide even one fact to support it. He would rather sing happy birthday to the earth.

    sigh!

  94. on 26 Sep 2013 at 2:08 am 94.Anonymous said …

    Simple question…huge dodge. littlest “a”, you fail. Predictable.

    Evolution discussions need to include time frames. What are you, a “science guy” or an complete idiot? Oh, don’t answer, we already know. LOL!!!

  95. on 26 Sep 2013 at 3:21 am 95.A40Y-HorX-Troll said …

    “Evolution discussions need to include time frames. What are you”

    Pick any time frame Lol!!! Just make sure it is macro, not your easy fall back to micro.

    There you go, obstacle removed!

    Lol!!!!!!!!!! Whadda ya got, more school yard name calling?!!!!!!!!

  96. on 26 Sep 2013 at 3:27 am 96.Anonymous said …

    894 – could we please not feed the troll?

    Pretty much every time we get Hor to drop the evolution diversions someone comes along and takes his bait and off we go again. He’s not going to answer your questions. Please just let it go.

  97. on 26 Sep 2013 at 3:59 am 97.Anonymous said …

    littlest “a”:
    “Evolution discussions need to include time frames. What are you, a “science guy” or an complete idiot?”
    Pick any time frame

    Epic failure. That, ladies and gentlemen, is how you get littlest “a” to show his true colour, chicken yellow.

    Afraid to commit to a short time frame (less than 10,000 years) for fear of looking absolutely ridiculous to “science guys” while appeasing fellow literalist christians. Can’t state the actual SM derived date (We were supposed to be looking at SM arguments) because the literalists would condemn him to (((HELL))) (TM). LOL!!!
    What a douche!!!

  98. on 26 Sep 2013 at 9:41 am 98.freddies_dead said …

    887.A40Y-HorX-Troll said …

    “You haven’t presented any evidence yet, that’s definitely your problem”

    Nope not my problem.

    Most definitely your problem.

    I presented exactly the amount of evidence you provided.

    Where? I can point out the posts in which I answered your questions and provided the evidence (or pointed you to where it could be found) that you asked for. Your turn to do the same A. I expect you to dodge once more though – just as Anonymous has shown – you refuse to engage in the discussion, you won’t answer any question asked of you and repeatedly ask questions that you’ve already had answered.

    “Just why do you believe in a God?”

    Because of all the evidence silly.

    What evidence? Where did you post it? A post number will do to start. Watch as A refuses to answer yet again.

    Now why do you believe in macroevolution with no proof? Are you not the “Facts Only” cult? Lol!!!!

    I have all the evidence I need. I’ve even presented you with some of that evidence and you’ve wilfully refused to examine it. Which leaves you having to lie about the evidence, such as you are doing now. Of course Christianity – you do consider yourself a Christian don’t you? – has a pretty strict rule about lying, but Christians, it seems, can find no way to defend their faith except by lying.

    Now, back to prayer.

    Do your prayers actually work?
    If so any evidence to show it?
    Just why do you believe in a God?

  99. on 26 Sep 2013 at 8:06 pm 99.A40Y-HorX-Troll said …

    “I have all the evidence I need. I’ve even presented you with some of that evidence and you’ve wilfully refused to examine it”

    A lie, but atheist are Ok with lying, right? lol!! How sad!
    Where? When? Is it the fish again? Ok , the fish is proof of God too. There you go.

    NEXT!

  100. on 26 Sep 2013 at 9:17 pm 100.Anonymous said …

    littlest “a”

    I see that you’re unable/unwilling/too stupid to take the plunge in a discussion of science, evolution, and things we know as fact. So, since you’re a real “science guy”, I will take this opportunity to point you to how ignorance is capable of driving the sciences. Yes, inquiry and not knowing is worth something as long as it’s “high-quality ignorance”. (Something you lack entirely)
    Dare to look up the TED talk given by neuroscientist Stuart Firestein.

    You’re welcome, you foolish little man. Try to unlearn and re-learn. Doubt you’ll get it.

  101. on 26 Sep 2013 at 9:48 pm 101.A40Y-HorX-Troll said …

    “I see that you’re unable/unwilling/too stupid to take the plunge in a discussion of science, evolution, and things we know as fact”

    Oh mosey, I could never ascend to your heights. That is why I look to you for guidance. I come to you in all due reverence and awe. Can you, using the SM method prove macro evolution to me? I want to believe mosey!

  102. on 26 Sep 2013 at 10:13 pm 102.Anonymous said …

    littlest “a”:
    “Can you, using the SM method prove macro evolution to me? I want to believe mosey”

    Impossible. You are entirely clueless about science or the SM. Simple questions my 4 year old is able to answer stop you in your tracks.

    Faith and prayer has fogged your ability to see anything beyond the realm of what your bible tells you. I know you want to believe, but you already do ;-) LOL!!!!

  103. on 26 Sep 2013 at 10:58 pm 103.A40Y-HorX-Troll said …

    “Simple questions my 4 year old is able to answer ”

    Oh good, put him on here and see if he can answer the simplest of questions!

    Lol!!!!!!!!!

    So pitiful and such a drone. You can’t answer because you have no proof. You were told to believe and you do. You certainly believe obamacare will save you money too! Lol!!!!!!

    Stay strong in your faith. I feel so badly for that kid. You should not be allowed to breed

  104. on 27 Sep 2013 at 1:15 am 104.Anonymous said …

    littlest “a”:
    “You can’t answer”
    LOL!!! Good one. So says the idiot that can’t even answer the simplest of questions about the age of our planet Earth. What a moron. Are you talking to yourself in the mirror again? ;-)

    tiny “a” again:
    “You certainly believe obamacare will save you money too!”
    Lucky for me I am not a Yankee. So fuck obamacare for all I care. Nice attempt at yet another dodge though.

    Oh “a”:
    “I feel so badly for that kid. You should not be allowed to breed”
    Thanks for your sincerest of concerns. I am deeply touched. Unfortunately, it’s too late. The boy will likely grow up to be an upstanding, successful, and productive person (just like his older siblings). He will be devoid of the dogmatic drivel supplied by the mentally paralyzed and religiously fervent adherents such as yourself. Have a good day, loser.

  105. on 27 Sep 2013 at 1:29 am 105.A40Y-HorX-Troll said …

    “the boy will likely grow up to be an upstanding, successful, and productive person”

    Its possible. Kids are resilant. Even the hater O’Hair had a kid that turned out well. We can hope for the best. Got to overcome your indoctrination but, yes, it is very possible.

    Oh no, mosey went to the loser blast. Hey you and your 4 year old use the same tactics! lol!!!!!!! Well played there mousey!

  106. on 27 Sep 2013 at 2:09 am 106.Anonymous said …

    littlest “a”:
    Thanks, again, for your concern. But I thought if I brought the boy up to think for himself, then he would avoid being indoctrinated. Hmmm…..Maybe he will spontaneously start prayer to god, or would a loser like you have to show him how? ;-) I bet you found prayer after the bottle got the better of you, right?

    Sorry for humiliating you, but for someone who claims to understand the SM, you’ve revealed that you truly are clueless.

  107. on 27 Sep 2013 at 9:38 am 107.freddies_dead said …

    899.A40Y-HorX-Troll said …

    “I have all the evidence I need. I’ve even presented you with some of that evidence and you’ve wilfully refused to examine it”

    A lie, but atheist are Ok with lying, right? lol!! How sad!

    Oh A, you know the only one lying here is you.

    You originally asked for evidence for evolution found using the scientific method and I gave you Tiktaalik – a transitional form which is evidence for evolution that was found using the scientific method – you have yet to make any successful challenge to this.

    After having your first “gotcha!” so thoroughly dismantled you then changed your question to ask for evidence of macroevolution … and, because it exists (unlike your God) I pointed you to the 29+ evidences of macroveolution over at TalkOrigins.

    You said you weren’t going to “wade through” the evidence I provided you with, hence demonstrating your willful refusal to examine the very evidence you requested.

    As for being OK with lying, not really. I understand there may be times when lying can be the most ethical decision (lying to prevent someone being harmed for example) but on the whole I do not condone it. Christians can’t make the same claim of course as lying is perfectly fine if God does/commands it (as He does in the Bible).

    Where? When? Is it the fish again? Ok , the fish is proof of God too. There you go.

    How is the fish proof of God A? It’s easy to see how a fish having tetrapod characteristics points towards evolution, but how do you get from a fish to knowing that an omnimax deity – specifically the Christian God – exists and is responsible for creating everything. You’re putting the cart before the horse – or rather the fish before the God in this instance – you should first demonstrate that your God exists and then show that He created everything.

    NEXT!

    Finally, to prayer then.

    Do your prayers actually work?
    If so do you have any evidence to show it?
    Just why do you believe in a God?
    Is it because of fish?
    Did you pray for fish and get what you prayed for?
    How can you distinguish between getting what you pray for and what may be coincidence?

  108. on 27 Sep 2013 at 12:35 pm 108.A40Y-HorX-Troll said …

    “brought the boy up to think for himself, then he would avoid being indoctrinated.”

    That would be nice, or he could just believe anything he is told much like you do. I AM SURE known of you biases will rub off! Lol!!!

    Like how atheist always claim they let their children think for themself yet they are the worst of indoctrinators.

    ” easy to see how a fish having tetrapod characteristics points towards evolution”

    Well……lets see it. Using the SM show us proof the fish became a tetrapod or any other species. I need proof not indoctrination.

  109. on 27 Sep 2013 at 1:21 pm 109.Anonymous said …

    littlest “a”:
    “brought the boy up to think for himself, then he would avoid being indoctrinated.”
    That would be nice, or he could just believe anything he is told

    No, that would be the biblical way. I will teach him HOW to think not WHAT to think. Simpleton questions about things such as the age of the Earth will not paralyze him like they do you ;-) . BTW, did you view the TED talk given by neuroscientist Stuart Firestein? Fascinating stuff!!! Maybe you’ve decided to stay stupid?

    Since you have demonstrated an inability to comprehend anything remotely science related, what is the value of prayer? Is it the petitioner that receives comfort or will an all knowing/all seeing god act on the request(s)?

  110. on 27 Sep 2013 at 4:55 pm 110.A40Y-HorX-Troll said …

    “I will teach him HOW to think not WHAT to think.”

    So that a simple questions like providing evidence using SM to support microecolution causes him to mess his pants like it does you? Maybe he will point at a fish fossil and scream “look speciation” lol!!!

    You need to learn the SM before you can teach it. You need to learn what constitutes a fact and what constitutes wishful thinking. No, I am afraid you just are not qualified.

    You are well qualified to teach him to call others names though. Hey, there’s something, right :)

  111. on 27 Sep 2013 at 5:23 pm 111.Anonymous said …

    littlest “hor”
    “I will teach him HOW to think not WHAT to think.”
    So that a simple questions like providing evidence using SM to support microecolution causes him to mess his pants like it does you?

    LOL!!! As always, your bible biased slant is colouring your perception of reality. Must be difficult for you being unable to square what you KNOW to be true with what you BELIEVE to be true. A whole lot of cognitive dissonance, perhaps? But that’s the life of a literalist bible thumper. Confusion, denial, and, worst of all, lying to yourself. What was it that Mark Twain said; “Faith is believing something you know ain’t true.” Shame on you hor!!

  112. on 27 Sep 2013 at 5:35 pm 112.alex said …

    when my son asks how old is the earth, what should i tell him, professor ass/hor/martin/40year? and what is the basis of your answer?

    let’s see how (un)qualified you are.

  113. on 27 Sep 2013 at 6:20 pm 113.A40Y-HorX-Troll said …

    “LOL!!! As always, your bible biased slant is colouring your perception of reality.”

    You will find I have not ever brought up the Bible. I understand, it helps you take the spotless off your inability to provide evidence for your own belief. Bible thumpers, uneducated, idiots, fools and all your other attempt at insults still points to the fact you failed.

  114. on 27 Sep 2013 at 6:44 pm 114.Anonymous said …

    Professor dumbfuck,

    I believe alex has a question for you.

  115. on 27 Sep 2013 at 6:48 pm 115.felix from minnesota said …

    wow i feel sorry for you guys… God has been in my life, and has made a huge difference for me in my existence. I love God and Jesus, nothing you print or say will ever convert us believers. I think it’s so funny how most of you eventually come around and start to beleive even after you try so hard to prove that He does not exist.
    A huge percentage of positive writing about God has come from authors that tried so hard to dis-prove, but they just could not. Then, commonly, in alot of those writer’s lives, something happened to blow all of there research away and
    let them know just how incorrect they were.
    I know….I have a friend that fits that criteria, and now he is one of the most devout followers of
    The Lord, and often laughs at how “dumb” he was before his re-birth into Christ.
    You’ll get it some day, I will pray for you until then.

    God bless and help you.
    -A friend

  116. on 27 Sep 2013 at 7:11 pm 116.A40Y-HorX-Troll said …

    “I think it’s so funny how most of you eventually come around and start to beleive even after you try so hard to prove that He does not exist.”

    Its even funnier they cannot prove what they believe now using the SAME criteria they want for God. Sure, 90% of the world is wrong and they are right. I would consider trusting them if the bar for evidence did not vary from the things they WANT to believe compared to the things they HATE.

    Then look at them. They all end up becoming just like alex. Bitter, angry, no purpose and with no hope. Its really sad. Thanks Felix but I hope I do not have to adopt your name too! My handle is getting long.

  117. on 27 Sep 2013 at 8:20 pm 117.Anonymous said …

    Felix:

    Thanks for your input. Would you care to state if you believe in evolution?
    As bonus questions, Felix: How old is our planet Earth?
    Does prayer help the petitioner or is it a direct line to the all knowing/all seeing god that you pray to?

    I am looking forward to your replies since that “other christian” posting here is too frightened to answer.

  118. on 28 Sep 2013 at 10:27 am 118.alex said …

    “They all end up becoming just like alex….

    who campaigns for the equal and fair treatment of gays, women and peoples from other nations. NOT teaching his kids the nonsense of creationism. tolerating ALL religions by championing their equal treatment.

    yeah, motherfucker, that alex dude is going to hell ain’t he? what exactly do i do that is any different than what some of your more logical theists do?

    “Sure, 90% of the world is wrong and they are right.”

    this is where your dumbass, just trumpets to the world what an incredible, stupid, motherfucker you are. almost all of the worlds theist beliefs are both hypocritical and contradictory, hence your constant apologetic nature. by definition, monotheist and polythiest gods are mutually exclusive. add it up, you dipshit. they can’t all be right, you fucking asshole.

    that’s right fuckhead. all you got is ad hominem shit. fuck you and your prayers.

  119. on 28 Sep 2013 at 12:34 pm 119.alex said …

    of course, the ignorant ass resident is clueless about the terms monotheist, polytheist, and ad hominem. even the word secular state scares the dipshit and i’m sure he won’t even look it up.

    he’d rather subscribe to the fucked up shit like the grand canyon formed by the flood, or oxygen starved dinosaurs morphing into dragons and a whole slew of other idiot nonsense.

    how old is the earth, motherfucker? you morons admit that god sometimes doesn’t answer your prayers, but you sure as hell know when he does, don’t you? you are god’s special motherfucker?

  120. on 28 Sep 2013 at 9:24 pm 120.Curmudgeon said …

    Good gosh Freddie are you still holding on to this false claim:

    “evidence for evolution found using the scientific method and I gave you Tiktaalik – a transitional form which is evidence for evolution that was found using the scientific method”

    It does not use the scientific method because we did not observe Tiktaalik evolve into anything. A fossil was found and drawings were rendered making some guesses. You guys look so stupid when you make such claim as this is evidence.

    You probably believe all the hype about the other transitionals which were but now are now not. Do yourself a favor and file this one away and stop looking like an idiot.

  121. on 29 Sep 2013 at 6:34 am 121.alex said …

    congratulations, dipshit. you’ve proven tiktaalik, bigfoot and the lochness monster are bullshit. this proves that your bullshit god aint?

    same line of thought. santa is the real deal, yes?

  122. on 29 Sep 2013 at 6:41 am 122.Anonymous said …

    Curmudge:
    “A fossil was found and drawings were rendered making some guesses. You guys look so stupid when you make such claim as this is evidence.”

    Well, duh! Fossils can be some of the evidence but there is more. If all the evidence was one fossil, you’d have the argument won – We wouldn’t know. But with many fossils we may try and interpolate and make some predictions, no?
    Let me ask you “how old is our planet Earth?” Someone cue the crickets. Will you FAIL to go down that road, much like littlest sweetest “a”. You are part of the same prayer circle, yes?

  123. on 29 Sep 2013 at 1:47 pm 123.DPK said …

    Nuclear fusion then does not use the sceintific method either. You cannot observe hydrogen fusing into helium. All we see is some quantity of hydrogen at the outset and some quantity of helium at the conclusion after a release of energy. Anything that happens in between is just a guess.
    Stan, do you thing changing your socks makes you sound any less stupid?
    How tiresome. Have you got anything else to support your claim of magical gods other than stupid inane comments about evolution? Anything?

  124. on 29 Sep 2013 at 7:01 pm 124.A40Y-HorX-Troll said …

    “Fossils can be some of the evidence but there is more.”

    Where is it? Can you stop hiding all these facts so we can see macroevolution is more than just a guess at history? Remember, you must use the SM which you claim you have but DPK has acknowledged you have not done so.

    Who is right?

    alex has concluded I have proven you wrong.
    Who is right?

  125. on 29 Sep 2013 at 8:20 pm 125.DPK said …

    “How tiresome. Have you got anything else to support your claim of magical gods other than stupid inane comments about evolution? Anything?”

    So that would be a “No”.

    We thought as much…. who’s next Stan? Perhaps it’s time to resurrect Boz or Biff?

  126. on 29 Sep 2013 at 9:07 pm 126.Anonymous said …

    little hor:
    “Where is it? Can you stop hiding all these facts so we can see macroevolution is more than just a guess at history?”

    Useless to discuss something scientific with an idiot that cannot agree to simple scientific facts…next!!

  127. on 29 Sep 2013 at 11:05 pm 127.alex said …

    “alex has concluded I have proven you wrong.”

    you really are a confirmed idiot. what you’re saying is by proving evolution wrong, it legitimizes your bullshit god? back to the godditit? if dark energy is not accelerating expansion of the universe, godisdoingit? if my theory of lost dryer sock is wrong, god is gapping it? you’re a fucking asshole.

  128. on 30 Sep 2013 at 1:46 am 128.A40Y-HorX-Troll said …

    “Useless to discuss something scientific with an idiot that cannot agree to simple scientific facts”

    Translation for the audience”

    “I have no facts which is why I don’t provide facts. All I have is the fossil of a fish. I would rather talk about my child, posters and try to quickly change the subject so others will not realize I place my faith in a reality that is provable with the scientific method.”

    NOW, in order for anyone to waste their time meeting the demands for proof you require for God, you must do the same. You cannot therefore your demands are now dismissed.

  129. on 30 Sep 2013 at 1:47 am 129.A40Y-HorX-Troll said …

    “what you’re saying is by proving evolution wrong,”

    Thank you alex. Can you let mousey and DPK know this too? :)

  130. on 30 Sep 2013 at 7:25 am 130.Angus and Alexis. said …

    Does anyone here have an account on the forums?
    Because i posted a topic, and hopefully A gets banned…once and for all…

  131. on 30 Sep 2013 at 12:01 pm 131.freddies_dead said …

    908.A40Y-HorX-Troll said …

    ” easy to see how a fish having tetrapod characteristics points towards evolution”

    Well……lets see it. Using the SM show us proof the fish became a tetrapod or any other species. I need proof not indoctrination.

    Lol, and this is why you’ll never understand it. You want me to show how a species (tiktaalik) became a superclass (tetrapod).

    Now, back to prayer then.

    Do your prayers actually work?
    If so do you have any evidence to show it?
    Just why do you believe in a God?
    Is it because of fish?
    Did you pray for fish and get what you prayed for?
    How can you distinguish between getting what you pray for and what may be coincidence?

  132. on 30 Sep 2013 at 12:03 pm 132.alex said …

    “what you’re saying is by proving evolution wrong,”

    you’re a moron 10X over with your multiple socks.

    proving “X” wrong doesn’t prove your god, get over it.

    proving dark energy wrong doesn’t prove your god.

    proving the invisible dryer sock fairy wrong….

    proving santa wrong…..

    proving allah/zeus wrong…..

    let’s say all, 100%, everything that atheists say are wrong, does this prove your god? you fucking moron.

  133. on 30 Sep 2013 at 12:06 pm 133.Angus and Alexis. said …

    Alex said
    “proving the invisible dryer sock fairy wrong….”

    Heretic, who else do you think steals your socks?

  134. on 30 Sep 2013 at 12:33 pm 134.freddies_dead said …

    920.Curmudgeon said …

    Good gosh Freddie are you still holding on to this false claim:

    “evidence for evolution found using the scientific method and I gave you Tiktaalik – a transitional form which is evidence for evolution that was found using the scientific method”

    It does not use the scientific method because we did not observe Tiktaalik evolve into anything.

    Good gosh Curmie can you not read for comprehension? Are you as clueless as A when it comes to understanding evidence? Your claims so far seem to suggest it. It was not then – and certainly isn’t now – a false claim.

    A fossil was found and drawings were rendered making some guesses. You guys look so stupid when you make such claim as this is evidence.

    Not anywhere near as stupid as someone like you who doesn’t understand that the way the fossil was found follows the scientific method exactly as was requested. And the nature of the fossil – a lobe finned fish with some tetrapod characteristics – still marks it out as a good example of a transitional form. Transitional forms being good evidence in support of evolution.

    You probably believe all the hype about the other transitionals which were but now are now not.

    Now you’re just babbling. Tiktaalik is still a lobe finned fish with some characteristics of later tetrapod animals – how has that changed through A’s (and now your) ignorant arguing? It’s still a transitional fossil. In fact there are no fossils which were once thought to be transitional and now aren’t – mostly because all fossils are transitional.

    Do yourself a favor and file this one away and stop looking like an idiot.

    I’m quite happy to file this one away. Under “evidence for evolution found using the scientific method” where it belongs.

    The only ones looking like idiots are you and A. You keep trying to make arguments which require a reasonable understanding of evolution, the scientific method and the nature of evidence, but all you manage is word salad and garbage.

    Now, back to prayer.

    Do your prayers actually work?
    If so do you have any evidence to show it?
    Just why do you believe in a God?
    Is it because of fish?
    Did you pray for fish and get what you prayed for?
    How can you distinguish between getting what you pray for and what may be coincidence?

  135. on 30 Sep 2013 at 7:38 pm 135.A40Y-HorX-Troll said …

    “became a superclass (tetrapod).”

    Yes….yes I do and tetrapods had already existed so…. Lol!!!!

    ” transitional form which is evidence for evolution that was found using the scientific method””

    How have you proved this as traditional and not just a fish with a lob?????? Lol!!!!

    I too used SM. I observed the fossil with the lob and concluded…..fish. Prove it wrong.

    Did balloons evolve from puffer fish? Lol!!!

  136. on 30 Sep 2013 at 9:07 pm 136.alex said …

    “I too used SM.”

    do it then, you dumb motherfucker. how old is the earth? chirp, chirp?

  137. on 30 Sep 2013 at 10:48 pm 137.A40Y-HorX-Troll said …

    “You keep trying to make arguments which require a reasonable understanding of evolution, the scientific method and the nature of evidence”

    Of which I, A, brought up in the first place.

    So NOW, you claim ALL fossils are transitional. Can you use the SM to prove it?

    Remember, we are determining the level of evidence required for God. So far, using your criteria, all we need to do is make a claim and find some who agree with me! Lol!!

  138. on 01 Oct 2013 at 1:30 am 138.alex said …

    “Can you use the SM to prove it?”

    try proving your prayer.

  139. on 01 Oct 2013 at 1:49 am 139.Cassiopia said …

    I would love to see the evidence for nothing becoming something, the origin of information, inert chemicals becoming people, atoms having a conscience, and morality stamped on DNA. When I see this evidence, I’ll become an evolutionist and carry the banner high.

    Until that happens evolutionists need to stop talking philosophy and get back to being real scientists.

  140. on 01 Oct 2013 at 3:59 am 140.Anonymous said …

    “Remember, we are determining the level of evidence required for God”

    Don’t forget folks, this is another of his lies and diversions. This is also why he will never answer your questions. Ever.

    But knock yourself out wasting time arguing with someone so disordered as Hor. It’s all a game to him. He’s not interested in getting his questions answered either. They are simply the means he uses to jerk people’s chains. No-one, not even a believer in the children’s story that is Xtianity, could be as fucking stupid as he comes over as.

    But if you really can’t walk away from the train wreck that is “a” and his sock-puppets, carry on making him look like a twat. Not that he actually needs any help in that category.

  141. on 01 Oct 2013 at 4:28 am 141.Angus and Alexis. said …

    Cassiopia said.
    “When I see this evidence, I’ll become an evolutionist and carry the banner high.”

    An evolutionist? What is that?
    Such a thing does not exist.

    “morality stamped on DNA.”

    Not this bloody argument…
    Morality does not come from god, deal with it.

    “inert chemicals becoming people”

    That would be abiogenesis, not evolution.
    And this proves god how i might add?

    “the origin of information”

    Information of what kind?
    Because you did not state what kind, i would say it came from books.

    “nothing becoming something”

    Ohh, you mean like your god who came from nothing?
    What a hypocrite.

    “atoms having a conscience”

    I have never heard of such a thing, go on?

    Anon said.
    “No-one, not even a believer in the children’s story that is Xtianity, could be as fucking stupid as he comes over as.”

    “A” is the epitome of stupidity, even the most mentally harmed stroke patients likely have more brainpower.

  142. on 01 Oct 2013 at 10:13 am 142.freddies_dead said …

    935.A40Y-HorX-Troll said …

    “became a superclass (tetrapod).”

    Yes….yes I do and tetrapods had already existed so…. Lol!!!!

    So you really expect me to show how a species became a superclass? You honestly think that’s a coherent question? Oh well, I guess there really is no hope for you.

    As for your claim that tetrapod characteristics already existed elsewhere. Once again, that has no bearing on Tiktaalik. None whatsoever. It doesn’t change the fact that Tiktaalik was a transitional form. It doesn’t suddenly take away the tetrapod characteristics noted by the scientists who found and classified it. Convergent evolution happens. Live with it.

    ” transitional form which is evidence for evolution that was found using the scientific method””

    How have you proved this as traditional and not just a fish with a lob?????? Lol!!!!

    I’m not sure why you think that writing this kind of word salad makes my argument look bad – it only makes you look an idiot.

    Tiktaalik was a lobe finned fish that had characteristics common to tetrapods. That’s what makes it a good example of a transitional form. I know you don’t like that fact, but tough. Unless you’ve got the ability to show how those scientists have misidentified those tetrapod characteristics you’re shit out of luck in trying to deny it.

    I too used SM.

    When? So far you’ve only demonstrated a total ignorance of the method.

    I observed the fossil with the lob and concluded…..fish.

    When did you observe the fossil? And what about it gave you cause to conclude that it’s a fish? What difference does that conclusion make to this discussion? And where in all of this has anyone denied that Tiktaalik is a fish? The scientists who classified it as such certainly didn’t. I haven’t. Even you agree it’s a fish. The problem, of course, is that it’s a fish with tetrapod characteristics. Those characteristics mark it out as a good example of a transitional form and provide some evidence which suggests that tetrapods evolved from fish like Tiktaalik.

    Prove it wrong.

    See, you don’t even understand when you actually manage to get something right. Why would I try to prove Tiktaalik isn’t a fish, when it is? I’m not in the slightest bit interested in claiming Tiktaalik is something other than what it is i.e. a lobe finned fish displaying tetrapod characteristics. I don’t need to distort the findings to support my argument.

    Did balloons evolve from puffer fish? Lol!!!

    See, again, you have no understanding so resort to what you think is mockery. It’s not mockery, you’re just pointing and laughing at yourself in the mirror A … and that’s really sad.

  143. on 01 Oct 2013 at 10:45 am 143.freddies_dead said …

    937.A40Y-HorX-Troll said …

    “You keep trying to make arguments which require a reasonable understanding of evolution, the scientific method and the nature of evidence”

    Of which I, A, brought up in the first place.

    You used the words, you’ve given no indication that you know what they mean.

    So NOW, you claim ALL fossils are transitional.

    It’s nothing new, I have always maintained that (see post 145).

    Can you use the SM to prove it?

    We can observe and test every fossil ever found to see what changes there are but the conclusion is actually a result of a more general understanding that evolution is a continual process. As such, every individual in a generation is slightly different from the generation before and the generation following will be different again. Fossils are simply snapshots of a species at a certain point in time and if you can find enough fossils you can start to build a timeline of the changes between generations.

    Remember, we are determining the level of evidence required for God.

    No we’re not. Instead you’ve spent months bitching pointlessly about evolution to try and divert the conversation away from the original topic of the efficacy of intercessory prayer. Through all that dodging and weaving we’ve simply asked you to present some evidence you think supports the claim that your God exists and answers prayers.

    Any evidence at all. Just present the evidence along with an explanation of how you a) found said evidence and b) think it supports your claim. It really is that simple but you’ve spent an awfully long time avoiding it.

    So far, using your criteria, all we need to do is make a claim and find some who agree with me! Lol!!

    No, so far, I’ve done exactly what you asked i.e. present evidence for evolution found using the SM and point you to evidence for macroevolution. I don’t give a toss who agrees with me about it, agreement or otherwise has no bearing on the 150+ years of evidence supporting the ToE.

    Now, can we actually get to discussing the efficacy of intercessory prayer?

    I’ve mentioned my criteria above, but here they are again:
    1) present your evidence
    2) explain how you found it
    3) explain how it supports your claim that your specific God exists and that He/She/It answers prayers.

  144. on 01 Oct 2013 at 11:01 am 144.A40Y-HorX-Troll said …

    “So you really expect me to show how a species became a superclass?”

    Duh!. Its called science. I’m sorry but “evolutuiondiddit” is not science. You can point at the fish and claim it is transitioning to a species that already existed and call it science but until you can use the SM for your argument is no more than “evolutiondiddit”.

    All the fossils are transitioning! lol!! So what are you transitioning to Freddie? A tetrapod? lol!!

    1) present your evidence
    2) explain how you found it
    3) explain how it supports your claim of macroevolution.

  145. on 01 Oct 2013 at 11:07 am 145.freddies_dead said …

    939.Cassiopia said …

    I would love to see the evidence for nothing becoming something,

    I’d love to see your evidence that there was actually ever a “nothing” for “something” to come from. Also, not evolution.

    the origin of information,

    Define information in this context. Until you do we can’t even decide whether it’s something evolution should explain.

    inert chemicals becoming people,

    Again, not evolution.

    atoms having a conscience,

    Lolwut? A conscience presupposes a consciousness. Do you have any evidence to suggest that individual atoms have consciousness? Until you do there’s no need to explain it all, never mind explain it through evolution.

    and morality stamped on DNA.

    You’re also going to clarify what you mean here. Do you expect to see morality defined in the sequences found in DNA? Or are you simply asking about the evolution of morality – which you can read about just by asking Google about “evolution of morality”.

    When I see this evidence, I’ll become an evolutionist and carry the banner high.

    Such a claim lacks sincerity when you make your requirements impossible to fulfill.

    Until that happens evolutionists need to stop talking philosophy and get back to being real scientists.

    So talking philosophy stops scientists from being scientists? Does that include all those “creation scientists” too? Have you told the Discovery Institute it should shut up about religion and get back to doing “real science” (whatever that might be in your little world).

    Also, where is the rule which states scientists aren’t allowed to join in the philosophical debate? Is it just those scientists who accept the ToE that are disallowed? What about the scientists who accept the ToE but still believe in God?

    Oh, I get it now. What you really mean is that anyone who doesn’t believe exactly as you do shouldn’t express their opinion … at all.

  146. on 01 Oct 2013 at 11:34 am 146.freddies_dead said …

    944.A40Y-HorX-Troll said …

    “So you really expect me to show how a species became a superclass?”

    Duh!. Its called science.

    And that readers is how we know A has no fucking clue about evolution. If he did he’d understand why his request it totally incoherent, but he doesn’t understand, so makes himself look like a fucking idiot instead.

    I’m sorry but “evolutuiondiddit” is not science.

    And here A thinks repeating a common atheist point (about the “god of the gaps” fallacy) and simply changing “god” to “evolution” is an argument.

    You can point at the fish and claim it is transitioning to a species that already existed and call it science but until you can use the SM for your argument is no more than “evolutiondiddit”.

    And here A doubles down on his stupidity by displaying his singular lack of understanding of fossil classification, transitional forms and throws in a failure to check out convergent evolution just for laughs.

    ?All the fossils are transitioning! lol!! So what are you transitioning to Freddie? A tetrapod? lol!!

    Oh look, another failed attempt at mockery. Of course A doesn’t realise that the fun is all at his expense.

    1) present your evidence
    2) explain how you found it
    3) explain how it supports your claim of macroevolution.

    Lol, already done it.
    1) Tiktaalik.
    2) Found using the SM – observed gap in the fossil record. Predicted location where an intermediate would be found. Expedition undertaken to test the prediction. Intermediate found where it was predicted.
    3) Transitional forms are evidence in favour of evolution. Tiktaalik is a transitional form therefore it is evidence in favour of evolution.

    We can see you’ve simply decided to stick with your ignorance and carry on dodging and weaving instead of actually taking up the challenge of providing evidence for your God and the efficacy of prayer. Don’t worry, we know why. It’s because prayer is a complete and utter waste of time because your God does not exist.

  147. on 01 Oct 2013 at 11:51 am 147.A40Y-HorX-Troll said …

    “2) Found using the SM – observed gap in the fossil record.”

    BAAAAHHHHH, no you did not observe the fish alive and you have not observed any progression of fossils linking it to tetrapods. No gap existed, you ASSUMED a gap is present. You must prove the gap exists AND fossils that tie this fish to tetrapods. You observed the fossil of a fish with a lob, no more. Try again! lol!

    “3) Transitional forms are evidence in favour of evolution. Tiktaalik is a transitional form therefore it is evidence in favour of evolution”

    BAAAAHHHH, see #2. You have NOT proven the fish to be transitional. You assume it is a transitional fossil. Not proof.

    Hint: “Evolutiondiddit” will not be considered the SM.

  148. on 01 Oct 2013 at 12:48 pm 148.freddies_dead said …

    947.A40Y-HorX-Troll said …

    “2) Found using the SM – observed gap in the fossil record.”

    BAAAAHHHHH, no you did not observe the fish alive and you have not observed any progression of fossils linking it to tetrapods.

    Lol, you truly are a clueless fuck.

    Starting with the old “were you there” bullshit. I didn’t need to be there to see it alive A, we have the fossils. Tiktaalik existed. It was a fish that displayed tetrapod characteristics. We also have a lot more fossils and Tiktaalik fits into the progression from fish to tetrapods. You have no way of denying it except to deny reality.

    No gap existed, you ASSUMED a gap is present.

    I assumed nothing. Scientists noted a gap in the fossil record between earlier fish like Panderichthys and early tetrapods such as Acanthostega and Ichthyostega. Then they went out and found the fossil of an animal that filled the gap.

    You must prove the gap exists AND fossils that tie this fish to tetrapods. You observed the fossil of a fish with a lob, no more. Try again! lol!

    The scientists already proved it and I need do nothing but point it out as a result.

    Simply Googling “tetrapod evolution” and reading through the Berkeley page or even the Wiki page shows you to be utterly uninformed and downright wrong … as usual.

    “3) Transitional forms are evidence in favour of evolution. Tiktaalik is a transitional form therefore it is evidence in favour of evolution”

    BAAAAHHHH, see #2. You have NOT proven the fish to be transitional. You assume it is a transitional fossil. Not proof.

    Lol, now you’re getting desperate. I didn’t make up the tetrapod characteristics that Tiktaalik displays and that the scientists who examined it noted while classifying the fossil. Their existence marks Tiktaalik out as a good example of a transitional form – your denial of reality makes no difference.

    Hint: “Evolutiondiddit” will not be considered the SM.

    Of course, no-one has claimed that it is or that it should be. There is only you baselessly asserting we’re making an “evolution of the gaps” argument. Of course, the scientists used the actual scientific method – something you’ve shown complete ignorance of so far – to find a fossil which is yet another piece of evidence for evolution. That is makes you look an idiot once more is a happy bonus.

    Let’s face it A, you’re just a reality denier who can’t provide evidence that his God exists and answers prayers.

  149. on 01 Oct 2013 at 7:59 pm 149.A40Y-HorX-Troll said …

    “It was a fish that displayed tetrapod characteristics.”

    So? What if it does have some characteristics. A lobe is hardly an earth shattering discovery! lol!!!Humans and pigs have similar hearts. It doesn’t mean we evolved from the pig.

    Yes, I am a denier because as a former believer I discovered the huge lack of evidence. Prove me wrong.

    Now, use the SM to prove macro evolution. I want to believe but I think for myself, unlike you who resorts to appeals to Authority.

  150. on 01 Oct 2013 at 9:51 pm 150.alex said …

    where is the dipshit’s argument(s) for god and/or prayer?

    his position is: if evolution is bullshit, his bullshit xtian god is legitimate. because he won’t list the reasons why his bullshit xtian god is legit, i will list them: 1)xtian god loves foreskins 2)xtian god loves the odor of burnt flesh 3)xtian god can’t beat iron chariots 4)xtian son of god wilts nonfruit bearing tree 5)xtian god murders/floods innocent people…….

    there you go ladies & gents. don’t believe in evolution, instead, believe in the xtian god. don’t listen to the evil atheist, instead, listen to the dipshit martin/ass/40year.

    prayer? statistics can be misrepresented, therefore prayer works.

    how about it hor? did i state your position clearly enough? sorry, i fergit your fav. the xtian god can be summoned to fuck up name-calling youths.

    you say i dropped the sock or it got stuck in the dryer? the hell you say. i retraced my steps and i looked in the dryer and i couldn’t find the missing sock. using your fucked up logic, therefore, the missing sock can only be explained by the invisible dryer sock monster. even though, i have no evidence to support my fucked up logic, as long as i can poke holes in your position, my dryer sock monster assertion stands. it’s called faith.

    go fuck yourself, hor.

  151. on 02 Oct 2013 at 3:00 am 151.Anonymous said …

    As tiresome as it is to see these continued diversions from Horatio and his sock-puppets, it’s also a thing of beauty to see the effortless way freddies_dead lays the smack down on our little troll. That’s some serious pwnage you’ve got going on there.

    Please take two internets for your service.

  152. on 02 Oct 2013 at 3:51 am 152.Angus and Alexis. said …

    I second Anon, take my Internets too.

    A said.
    “BAAAAHHHHH, no you did not observe the fish alive and you have not observed any progression of fossils linking it to tetrapods.”

    Darn, we cant observe nuclear fusion, therefore nuclear fusion does not exist.
    That’s why the sun is obviously just a giant fireball made by god and suspended in space. 9_9

    Ohh wait, we know nuclear fusion exists, and that the sun uses it, by using, gosh, the scientific method.

    Care to prove this “God” of yours with the scientific method?
    Ohh wait, i forgot you are a coward.

  153. on 02 Oct 2013 at 11:47 am 153.Cassiopia said …

    All over the net I see people trying to defend evolution. However when they do so using false arguments that is not so good. For example one of my pet peeves is a particular argument that I’ve seen commonly used to rebut antievolutionist claims that there is a lack of “transitional” forms in the fossil record which often goes something like this:

    “You don’t know what you’re talking about, all fossils are transitional.”

    Unfortunately this is simply not true. Not all individuals reproduce; nor do all species give rise to new species. In fact many (if not most) lineages in the history of life have led to dead ends. Think about it, if a fossil represents a species which did not give rise to new species, what is it transitioning to?

  154. on 02 Oct 2013 at 12:04 pm 154.Anonymous said …

    Cass
    “Think about it, if a fossil represents a species which did not give rise to new species, what is it transitioning to?”
    Extinction?
    Perhaps the question becomes: How did the new species arise? From a previous “model”? From god? “Fixed species” was the thinking of the day that spurred Darwin to find a more suitable explanation. He wanted to create a better model and came up with his theory in the 1800’s.

  155. on 02 Oct 2013 at 1:02 pm 155.freddies_dead said …

    949.A40Y-HorX-Troll said …

    “It was a fish that displayed tetrapod characteristics.”

    So? What if it does have some characteristics. A lobe is hardly an earth shattering discovery!

    See, you don’t even have a clue what the characteristics were. It was a fish with a neck, shoulders, elbows and wrists.

    lol!!!Humans and pigs have similar hearts. It doesn’t mean we evolved from the pig.

    Of course it doesn’t and the ToE doesn’t claim that it does. Instead the homologous structures suggest that pigs and humans shared a common ancestor at some point in the past.

    Yes, I am a denier because as a former believer I discovered the huge lack of evidence. Prove me wrong.

    I already have done A, anyone reading can see that for themselves. Your refusal to “wade through” the evidence given to you illustrates that you haven’t “discovered the huge lack of evidence” you’re simply denying it.

    Now, use the SM to prove macro evolution.

    Already done. You refused to “wade through” the evidence over on TalkOrigins.

    I want to believe but I think for myself, unlike you who resorts to appeals to Authority.

    To which authority are you claiming I’m appealing? Tiktaalik’s existence doesn’t rely on any authority – it’s a fact, the fossils prove it. That it displays tetrapod characteristics is also a fact that needs no authority – again, the fossil shows those characteristics. The conclusion that it’s a transitional form comes directly from those facts.

    Denying those facts isn’t thinking for yourself A, it’s done because you don’t like the idea that your religious book is wrong. If it’s wrong about how we/animals got to where we are – and it is – then there’s a good chance it’s wrong about other things as well. I suspect you recognise it yourself, but you’re denying reality as you don’t like the consequences.

  156. on 02 Oct 2013 at 1:27 pm 156.freddies_dead said …

    953.Cassiopia said …

    All over the net I see people trying to defend evolution. However when they do so using false arguments that is not so good. For example one of my pet peeves is a particular argument that I’ve seen commonly used to rebut antievolutionist claims that there is a lack of “transitional” forms in the fossil record which often goes something like this:

    “You don’t know what you’re talking about, all fossils are transitional.”

    Unfortunately this is simply not true. Not all individuals reproduce; nor do all species give rise to new species. In fact many (if not most) lineages in the history of life have led to dead ends. Think about it, if a fossil represents a species which did not give rise to new species, what is it transitioning to?

    Are you Troy Britain? If not it’s pretty bad form not to cite his blog post from March 1st 2008, from where you quotemined this response.

    I would ask why you didn’t post the rest of it, but I believe I already know why. For everyone else Mr Britain goes on to say:

    “Of course part of the problem is the use of term “transitional fossil” since the word transitional implies that there is some certainty about specific lineages which is actually rarely the case in paleontology.

    It is better to talk about “intermediate fossils” since this refers to morphological characters (facts) rather than hypothetical lineages.

    For example Archaeopteryx is undeniably intermediate in form between dinosaurs and birds being a mixture of both dinosaurian and avian (and some in between) characters, this is a fact. The question as to whether or not the genus Archaeopteryx is itself ancestral to later birds would be a hypothesis which is 1) very difficult to test and 2) not one that all paleontologists who work on dinosaurs/birds necessarily agree upon.

    So please, for the sake of my sanity (and for scientific accuracy), spread the word to stop claiming that all fossils are “transitional” and maybe encourage the use of the term “intermediate” instead.

    End rant.”

    So his objection was a linguistic one. One I don’t necessarily agree with. I believe the terms to be fairly interchangeable (similar to Dave S. who answers Mr Britain in the comments on that blog – did you read the comments Cass?).

    However, if you prefer the term “intermediate” when referring to fossils then I’m fine with that. Intermediate fossils are still evidence for evolution and it’s still true that all fossils are intermediate.

    Now Cassiopia, as you’ve shown a liking for defining terms more specifically, how are you getting on defining “information”? Or clarifying your claim that morality is stamped in our DNA? How about explaining which scientists are (and which aren’t) allowed to dabble in philosophy? Oh, and don’t forget about proving there was ever a nothing for the something to come out of?

  157. on 02 Oct 2013 at 4:00 pm 157.A40Y-HorX-Troll said …

    “You don’t know what you’re talking about, all fossils are transitional.”

    Exactly Cass, what they are saying is “evolutiondiddit” therefore I have no need to use science to prove it. EVERY species has some similarities like DNA but so what? That is not proof of macroevoltion. I bought into it at one time until my eyes were opened.

    Here is where the rubber meets the road. These same atheists would never accept that level of evidence for God. They have NEVER seen macroevolution take place but they discover a fish fossil and they believe.

  158. on 02 Oct 2013 at 4:44 pm 158.Angus and Alexis said …

    A said.
    “These same atheists would never accept that level of evidence for God.”

    So, if evolution is false due to “apparent lack of evidence” , and god has no evidence, are you saying god does not exist?
    Hmmm…

  159. on 02 Oct 2013 at 5:10 pm 159.Anonymous said …

    the hor:
    “EVERY species has some similarities like DNA but so what?”
    We’re all related? You to the plants, me to the animal kingdom ;-)

    “I bought into it at one time until my eyes were opened.”
    What do you see now?

    “These same atheists would never accept that level of evidence for God”
    Show me the Theory of god. Is there one?

    “They have NEVER seen macroevolution take place but they discover a fish fossil and they believe.”
    If ALL of the evidence was ONE fish fossil, I’d declare you the winner and ask for your explanation. But we all know it’s much more than that and begins with an understanding of the time frames involved. Or maybe, one day, we’ll invent time travel and visit with the Flintstones and see how much we’ve evolved from simple cartoon-ish characters.

  160. on 02 Oct 2013 at 5:27 pm 160.freddies_dead said …

    957.A40Y-HorX-Troll said …

    “You don’t know what you’re talking about, all fossils are transitional.”

    Exactly Cass, what they are saying is “evolutiondiddit” therefore I have no need to use science to prove it.

    Except where I’ve shown where scientists used science to prove it of course. Right here on this thread. Over and over again. Showing you where your objections are wrong or incoherent or don’t apply. Showing where you’ve moved the goalposts again and again. Showing where you revel in your wilful ignorance as if that somehow refutes evolution.

    EVERY species has some similarities like DNA but so what? That is not proof of macroevoltion.

    So, what pretty much everyone else sees as valid evidence (that happens to support evolution), you’ve decided it doesn’t count. Even though it’s exactly what you asked for i.e. the application of the scientific method along with empirical data. You wouldn’t know of course, because you refuse to “wade through” the evidence. You’re not going to let a little thing like that get in the way of you discarding it though, are you?

    I bought into it at one time until my eyes were opened.

    I really don’t believe you. You show so little understanding of the theory, the methods and the data that it’s ridiculous to think you actually accepted the ToE.

    I do accept that you’ve always had your eyes closed though, but you’ve not done more than flutter them open for a nanosecond before closing them up tight again just in case you accidentally learn something.

    You had no valid reason to believe and you now have no valid reason not to, yet you continue to claim to have enough knowledge to dismiss 150+ years of evidence for the best supported theory in all of science.

    Here is where the rubber meets the road. These same atheists would never accept that level of evidence for God.

    If you had the same level of evidence for your God that the Theory of Evolution has we wouldn’t be having this discussion as everyone (except the odd nutball of course) would believe in your God.
    However, despite us asking over and over for any evidence, you’ve refused to present any.

    They have NEVER seen macroevolution take place but they discover a fish fossil and they believe.

    If only you’d “wade through” some of the evidence we’ve presented to you you’d know that’s simply not true. The rise of new species has been seen by scientists i.e nylon-eating bacteria, but, because you don’t don’t like that fact, you carry on denying reality to maintain your religious beliefs – even though evolution has absolutely no bearing on most religions. Indeed, thousands of religious people have no problem incorporating evolution into their ideology. The only ones who struggle are those who are desperate to continue believing that their religious books are inerrant.

  161. on 02 Oct 2013 at 6:05 pm 161.A40Y-HorX-Troll said …

    “So what pretty much everyone else sees as valid evidence (that happens to support evolution), you’ve decided it doesn’t count”

    There ya go, proof of evolution. Everyone else (not true if course) believes a few similarities count as proof of ToE therefore it is true! Real Science at work! Lol!!

    OK, most everyone believes in a deity, and recognize the obvious, therefore that is also true.

  162. on 02 Oct 2013 at 6:10 pm 162.A40Y-HorX-Troll said …

    “Over and over again. Showing you where your objections are wrong”

    I have no objections other than you have failed to prove your case for macroevolution using the SM. Similarities does not make it true. And you claim to understand the nature of evidence and the SM! Lol!!

    Tell me, how did nature develop complex information code like DNA? Similarities with mud? Lol!!

  163. on 02 Oct 2013 at 8:10 pm 163.Anonymous said …

    the hor
    “Similarities with mud?”
    Mud -Isn’t that what god fabricated man from? How long have humans existed on our planet Earth? Will you fail to answer? Prediction: YES.

  164. on 03 Oct 2013 at 12:51 am 164.alex said …

    “How long have humans existed on our planet Earth?”

    using the biblical scientific method, around 6500 years? and that includes the rest of the universe. what about the stars you see? those are just lights. you can’t prove they’re stars, can you? silly atheists.

  165. on 03 Oct 2013 at 1:25 am 165.A40Y-HorX-Troll said …

    “Tell me, how did nature develop complex information code like DNA?”

    No God, right? So how did nature write such complex code? You failed to prove macroevolution maybe you can tell us how non-life produced life and THEN wrote such highly complex code?????

    Nature writes complex information code THEN nature turns non-life into life and THEN it takes this simple forms of life and takes that simple life form and transforms it into very complex forms of life over time. LOL!!! AND you believe it all with zero proof.

    WOW!! That is a lot of faith!!!.

  166. on 03 Oct 2013 at 2:09 am 166.Anonymous said …

    alex:
    “using the biblical scientific method, around 6500 years?”
    LOL!!!!

  167. on 03 Oct 2013 at 2:37 am 167.Anonymous said …

    In post #873 the hor posted:
    “I am easy to please. Prove ToE or prove Abio”

    In post #965 the hor again:
    “Nature writes complex information code THEN nature turns non-life into life and THEN it takes this simple forms of life and takes that simple life form and transforms it into very complex forms of life over time.”

    So, what is it, moron? Evolution or abiogenesis? Why do you keep obfuscating the issue? Oh, that’s right, you’ve got nothing….not even a primitive fish fossil to prove your flavour of a god. Too bad.

  168. on 03 Oct 2013 at 5:39 am 168.Anonymous said …

    You do all realize that Cassiopia [sic] is Hor using a sock-puppet, don’t you?

    Look back, both of those posts are verbatim cut-n-paste jobs from other web sites. Not only that, but a random theist suddenly landed on a blog post about prayer and provided the classic diversion for Hor, in the style or Hor, and with the spelling abilities of Hor? Really? You’re buying that?

    freddies_dead, you were wiping the floor with the tiresome troll. He needed a way to get you off his back. Looks like you folks bought it hook, line, and sinker.

  169. on 03 Oct 2013 at 7:41 am 169.freddies_dead said …

    961.A40Y-HorX-Troll said …

    “So what pretty much everyone else sees as valid evidence (that happens to support evolution), you’ve decided it doesn’t count”

    There ya go, proof of evolution.

    Where did I make that claim? Oh, that’s right, I didn’t. A just needs to lie about what I did say in order to make yet another false objection. I was, of course, talking about the nature of the evidence i.e. transitional/intermediate forms being viewed as valid evidence – evidence that happens to support evolutionary theory. A can’t cope with that fact and has no way of refuting it so simply denies such evidence exists.

    Everyone else (not true if course) believes a few similarities count as proof of ToE therefore it is true! Real Science at work! Lol!!

    A’s stupidity at work. He tries to make out that all the evidence there is is a few fossils that have a few similarities. Of course we have millions of fossils all of them building up into a record that shows faunal succession. Then of course we have the massive dataset that is extant species and we’re now able to test the DNA of millions of animals. Fossils were good, but they weren’t everything. However, along with comparative anatomy they made a very good case for Darwin’s theory of descent with modification. Now, comparative genomics really seals the deal. Evolution is true, but, again, A doesn’t like what he thinks are the consequences so he denies reality instead.

    I’ve also never claimed that the ToE has been “proved”. Evolution happens (both micro and macro). The Theory of Evolution is simply the best explanation of how. If anyone disagrees they’re welcome to present an alternative theory – A always runs away from giving us his – they just need to make sure it explains all the data that the current ToE does in a manner that makes more sense.

    OK, most everyone believes in a deity, and recognize the obvious, therefore that is also true.

    Which deity – out of the thousands put forward for consideration – is the right one? Yours? Why? What evidence do you have that the Muslims don’t? Or the Jews? The Hindus? etc… etc… If a deity is so obvious why don’t we all believe in the same one? If this is an argument you want to make go ahead and show us your evidence A.

  170. on 03 Oct 2013 at 8:06 am 170.freddies_dead said …

    962.A40Y-HorX-Troll said …

    “Over and over again. Showing you where your objections are wrong”

    I have no objections

    Certainly no valid ones.

    other than you have failed to prove your case for macroevolution using the SM.

    Bollocks. How can you even know this? By your own admission you’re not prepared to “wade through” the evidence presented.

    Similarities does not make it true.

    Does not make what true? Evolution? Changes in allele frequencies in populations over time is a fact. It is true. You have no response to this, none, zip, nada, nothing. All you do is bitch and whine about evidence you refuse to examine. That’s no problem for me and it certainly doesn’t affect the truth of evolution.

    And you claim to understand the nature of evidence and the SM! Lol!!

    Well, lets see. Out of the two of us who has presented evidence and explained the method used to find it. That’s right, that would be me, while you have presented none, zip, nada, nothing and made no attempt to explain anything, let alone a method of inquiry. All the discussions so far demonstrate you have no idea what constitutes evidence and what makes up a method to discover facts.

    Tell me, how did nature develop complex information code like DNA?

    First define what you mean by complexity e.g. our DNA is very similar to that of a nematode but is it the DNA that is complex or the transcription of that DNA during development? Next define information in this context. Are you going to suggest information can never be gained by DNA? In which case you need to account for gene duplication and viral insertion in your explanation.

    Similarities with mud? Lol!!

    Do you actually believe mud to be a living organism? That’s a bizarre theory you have there, but then it’s no more bizarre than the belief that a God made humans out of dirt.

  171. on 03 Oct 2013 at 8:22 am 171.freddies_dead said …

    968.Anonymous said …

    You do all realize that Cassiopia [sic] is Hor using a sock-puppet, don’t you?

    Look back, both of those posts are verbatim cut-n-paste jobs from other web sites. Not only that, but a random theist suddenly landed on a blog post about prayer and provided the classic diversion for Hor, in the style or Hor, and with the spelling abilities of Hor? Really? You’re buying that?

    freddies_dead, you were wiping the floor with the tiresome troll. He needed a way to get you off his back. Looks like you folks bought it hook, line, and sinker.

    I’m not buying anything, I’m just as happy wiping the floor with A when he’s dishonestly sock-puppeting as when he’s being his usual stupid self.

  172. on 03 Oct 2013 at 10:10 am 172.Angus and Alexis said …

    Well, the plan of banning A from this site had no progress.

    Ohh well, Freddie, keep owning A, its amusing XD.

  173. on 03 Oct 2013 at 11:31 am 173.A40Y-HorX-Troll said …

    “Evolution or abiogenesis? Why do you keep obfuscating the issue?”

    Simple, its BOTH. They both lack evidence verifiable by SM. They are logically linked and I will accept any evidence you have for either. Prove me wrong, provide evidence.

    Oh Wait!! You admitted it is NOT fact! This is contrary to what the scientist are claiming???

    Would you guys get together and determine if it is indeed fact or myth! lol!!

  174. on 03 Oct 2013 at 3:17 pm 174.freddies_dead said …

    I see A is back denying reality again.

    Refusing to “wade through” the evidence provided does not equal a lack of evidence. Similarly, you not understanding the scientific method doesn’t equate to the evidence not being verified through the SM.

  175. on 03 Oct 2013 at 7:54 pm 175.A40Y-HorX-Troll said …

    “Refusing to “wade through” the evidence”

    Actually I only refused to wade through your crap. Present some real evidence and we will wade together so you can can learn the nature of evidence.

    Come on, present the most compelling piece of evidence. CAN you do it? Do you have anything to present? Since it is not fact all you have is opinion, right?

    Prediction:. Nothing

  176. on 03 Oct 2013 at 9:36 pm 176.Anonymous said …

    the hor:
    “Come on, present the most compelling piece of evidence. CAN you do it?” yadayada yawn ” Do you have anything to present?”
    Coming up ANOTHER epic fail for the hor: How about age of the Earth? How long have humans existed on that timescale? Yawn.
    Prediction: Nothing from the hor. EPIC FAILURE!!!

  177. on 04 Oct 2013 at 10:40 am 177.freddies_dead said …

    975.A40Y-HorX-Troll said …

    “Refusing to “wade through” the evidence”

    Actually I only refused to wade through your crap.

    No. You refused to wade through the evidence. You’re doing it now too. Baselessly asserting that it’s “crap” without any valid reason to do so.

    Present some real evidence and we will wade together so you can can learn the nature of evidence.

    Lol, so I can learn. Good one. Except I already understand the nature of evidence which is why I keep referring you to the “real” evidence that you asked for. I get why you’re sticking your head up your arse about it though, desperate to avoid examining it too closely. It’s because your fragile belief system can’t cope with the consequences of your book of myths being wrong.

    Come on, present the most compelling piece of evidence. CAN you do it? Do you have anything to present?

    The most compelling evidence is the sheer mass of evidence that all supports the ToE, but, seen as you only want one, I’ll look to molecular biology and go with endogenous retroviruses. We’ll wait while you refuse to “wade through” that evidence too.

    Since it is not fact all you have is opinion, right?

    Fossils are opinion now? DNA works by consensus? Oh wait, no, that’s not how it works at all. The fossils are facts, the DNA structures are facts. And what do those facts tell us. Well they tell us that evolution is true – it’s not an opinion. The process of evolution happens, allele frequencies in populations change over time. You have conceded this fact several times already but still deny evolution because you don’t like how those changes can add up over time and result in new species, new classes and new families of animals.

    As I’ve pointed out time and time again the modern Theory of Evolution is the best explanation of the facts of evolution i.e. we have descent with modification. If you think you have a better theory, then go ahead and present it along with the evidence you think supports it. We’ve been trying to get you to do this for months now but you always run away from it – preferring to keep on with your diversionary tactics and sock puppet dishonesty. Again, we know why. You have no alternative theory. You have no evidence. All you have is some sad little creationist bullet points that have long been shown to be false.

    Prediction:. Nothing

    Prediction: wrong. Par for the course with you.

  178. on 04 Oct 2013 at 11:45 am 178.A40Y-HorX-Troll said …

    “No. You refused to wade through the evidence. You’re doing it now too. Baselessly asserting that it’s “crap” without any valid reason to do so.”

    A link is not evidence. A fish is not evidence. If you have some real evidence post it. I have spent many the hour in Biology and I do not need a rehash of the same tried claims.

    ToE being the BEST explanation does not make it fact, it makes it OPINION. You do know what opinion is, right? What you have is a great story, with zero evidence. You can’t begin to tell us how the story began and and you cannot use the SM to affirm or falsify the process.

    For an atheist, I understand why you must force yourself to believe. The alternative for you is devastating.

    So now why must I present an alternative view? What about Crick’s Panspermia? I don’t need an alternative to recognize stories with no evidence. Give me a natural process that will write complex information code like DNA from, mud? water? Hydrogen?????

  179. on 04 Oct 2013 at 5:06 pm 179.freddies_dead said …

    978.A40Y-HorX-Troll said …

    “No. You refused to wade through the evidence. You’re doing it now too. Baselessly asserting that it’s “crap” without any valid reason to do so.”

    A link is not evidence.

    No, the link takes you to the evidence.

    A fish is not evidence.

    Why not? How is a fish that shares characteristics with tetrapods not evidence? You never explain this, simply dismissing it as if that makes it go away. It’s still there, it’s still evidence.

    If you have some real evidence post it.

    I have done. You’ve thrown out a couple of invalid objections and run away every time it’s discussed.

    I have spent many the hour in Biology and I do not need a rehash of the same tried claims.

    I call bullshit. You’ve shown pretty much no understanding of any of the issues discussed. If you were in those classes you must have been asleep.

    ToE being the BEST explanation does not make it fact, it makes it OPINION.

    No, it makes it a scientific theory – you’d understand that if you’d sat through as many hours of biology classes as you claim to have done. It’s an explanation of the facts. It has to be coherent and explain all the data. It’s certainly not an opinion.

    You do know what opinion is, right?

    Yes I do, you though? Not so much.

    What you have is a great story, with zero evidence.

    No A, it’s an awesome explanation with 150+ years worth of evidence.

    You can’t begin to tell us how the story began

    I have never claimed to have been able to. If you have an explanation though you’re welcome to give it. With supporting evidence of course.

    and and you cannot use the SM to affirm or falsify the process.

    Liar. This has already been done. Something you’d know if you’d examined or understood the evidence you were presented with and had done the biology classes as you claim.

    For an atheist, I understand why you must force yourself to believe. The alternative for you is devastating.

    Devasating? Really? Actual evidence of a deity capable of delivering eternal bliss? And all He needs from me in order to provide that bliss is a bit of sincere ass-kissing. That’s about as devastating as a gentle breeze. A light rain. Or one of your pathetic attempts to refute evolution.

    So now why must I present an alternative view?

    Why else would you seek to overturn evolution if you don’t want it replaced with a theory you believe is a better explanation? If you have no alternative theory you’re simply denying evolution for no other reason than your own laziness. It must be laziness as the only reason you’ve given that holds up to any scrutiny is your refusal to “wade through” the evidence.

    What about Crick’s Panspermia?

    What about it? It’s a theory of origins, not a theory explaining how we got to the modern level of biodiversity from those origins. Crick wasn’t a theist. His (and Orgel’s) ‘creator’ was extra terrestrial – not supernatural. He also admitted – in the paper in which he outlined his theory – that it was a mere possibility, that there wasn’t enough scientific evidence to suggest any level of probability; and when the RNA world hypothesis was devised Crick himself noted that it was actually more likely that life arose spontaneously on Earth rather than came from outer space. Whatever the origins though, Crick accepted evolution as the mechanism by which modern biodiversity arose.

    I don’t need an alternative to recognize stories with no evidence.

    Well we’ve already noted that you’re completely wrong about evolution being “a story without evidence” so, whilst you don’t necessarily have to have an alternative, you do need to work way harder on your reading comprehension so that one day you may actually recognise a story without evidence i.e. the Christian myth.

    Give me a natural process that will write complex information code like DNA from, mud? water? Hydrogen?????

    Chemical reactions.

  180. on 04 Oct 2013 at 5:44 pm 180.Anonymous said …

    From the hor, finally:
    “ToE being the BEST explanation”
    You’re getting it!!!!!!!

    “For an atheist, I understand why you must force yourself to believe. The alternative for you is devastating.”
    It’s the BEST explanation. You said so yourself. If there’s another better explanation, I’ll go with it. Have you got one? Maybe you don’t want to devastate my world..LOL!!!
    What about those theists (Francis, Collins, ETC,ETC) that have no problem with ToE. Will a newer theory devastate them also?

  181. on 04 Oct 2013 at 6:30 pm 181.A40Y-HorX-Troll said …

    “Give me a natural process that will write complex information code like DNA from, mud? water? Hydrogen?????”
    The Big Answer: Chemical reactions.

    ROTFL!!!!!!!!!!!!! This was the best and funniest! Ok, I’ll bite, show me a chemical reaction that writes the complex information from mud? water? hydrogen? What? Hey transistors write the code for the Windows 8 OS? lol!!!!!!!!!

    “Why not? How is a fish that shares characteristics with tetrapods not evidence?”

    The same way something that looks designed doesn’t count as evidence of a designer. Right?
    Tetrapods already existed for millions of years before your fish therefore this transition already existed, Right?. LOL, and you know biology! Time to pullout the The Coelacanth fish. Is it still transitional to land animals?

    “Crick himself noted that it was actually more likely that life arose spontaneously on Earth”

    Produce the math of the probability of these two options. Then we can deduce which is more likely. Maybe his aliens planted seeds for each species? lol, at least I gave you something to research. Well done little guy!

    “I call bullshit.”

    Nobody cares

    “If you were in those classes you must have been asleep.”

    Not only did I take HS and College Biology, my daughter was a biology major now working on a PHd in Neuroscience. She also doesn’t buy it :) You don’t believe but I don’t really care. You still have produced zilch to prove the “best explanation”, other than opinion.

    Summarize:

    Its not fact.(admitted by you but not some biologist)

    It is only an explanation with huge holes, no beginning and has never been observed on a macro level.

    Too Easy!

  182. on 04 Oct 2013 at 6:39 pm 182.A40Y-HorX-Troll said …

    “What about those theists (Francis, Collins, ETC,ETC) that have no problem with ToE. Will a newer theory devastate them also?”

    I can’t see how. God existence is not dependent on ToE. Collins and others have no choice but to profess to the state position. Their positions depend on it. Take a look at how those who deviate from the state position have fared.

    “Maybe you don’t want to devastate my world..LOL!!!”

    Nah, wouldn’t do that. You have shown your worldview to be a fairytale.

  183. on 05 Oct 2013 at 2:10 am 183.Anonymous said …

    the hor:
    “Collins and others have no choice but to profess to the state position.”
    And you know this how exactly? Maybe Collins is a man of reason, belief in a god notwithstanding. Seems to put in a lot of extra effort supporting ToE with his website. Maybe he’s earning State brownie points? Or maybe he’s just putting it together in a way that you and your clever daughter are unable to.
    You sound a little like a moon landing denier with your claim that there’s a State conspiracy to silence anyone not toeing the official line on ToE. Be careful, hor, you don’t want to upset the State…with their Men in Black and all that…LOL!!!

  184. on 05 Oct 2013 at 10:42 am 184.alex said …

    in a nutshell, hor says all these things are bullshit without the proper proof, but his gods are above the fray and should be believed (by morons) without question. fuck you hor.

  185. on 05 Oct 2013 at 2:09 pm 185.A40Y-HorX-Troll said …

    “You sound a little like a moon landing denier”

    Lol!!! No, I leave that for the God deniers. Same people.

    I do KNOW that questioning the state dogma of ToE will result in an attempt to destroy your career. That is fact. Could he believe? Possibly, Must he believe, absolutely.

  186. on 05 Oct 2013 at 2:44 pm 186.Anonymous said …

    the hor:
    “Could he believe? Possibly, Must he believe, absolutely.”
    Fact is that YOU DON”T KNOW. Maybe Collins, unlike YOU and your clever daughter, has found a way to believe in a god and accept ToE. It’s called “intelligence” ;-) LOL!!!

  187. on 05 Oct 2013 at 5:54 pm 187.A40Y-HorX-Troll said …

    “Fact is that YOU DON”T KNOW”

    True, I only used the same paradigm as you for ToE.lol!!!!!!!!

    I also used the information I do know about others in the world of academia. Its the only theory in science you cannot criticize.

    Of course one can be intelligent and accept ToE. You must do it on faith. It makes more sense when intelligence is involved. To be an atheist and accept is mete foolishness. Lol!!!!

  188. on 05 Oct 2013 at 7:59 pm 188.alex said …

    “Of course one can be intelligent and accept ToE. You must do it on faith.”

    who the fuck here is peddling toe? you on the otherhand is the purveyor of the ultimate bullshit. endless redemption with the promise of eternal bliss. to all the dipshit motherfuckers, the line forms behind hor/martin/ass.

  189. on 06 Oct 2013 at 12:33 pm 189.Angus and Alexis said …

    Remember people, A is the guy who’s worldview on science means that nuclear fusion and the sun cannot exist.

  190. on 06 Oct 2013 at 4:56 pm 190.Anonymous said …

    “Remember people, A is the guy who’s worldview on science means that nuclear fusion and the sun cannot exist.”

    No. A is a self-confessed troll who is winding you up. What he is doing is making deliberately stupid and inflammatory comments with the intention of:

    (a) derailing any and all conversations on here regarding religion
    (b) getting under your skin
    (c) provoking “you” into responding to his vacuous comments despite the fact that he clearly has no intention of engaging in honest discourse
    (d) laughing at everyone one of you who allows themselves to be drawn into his game

    How’s he doing?

  191. on 06 Oct 2013 at 6:57 pm 191.A40Y-HorX-Troll said …

    Another admission from Alexis and his made up friend that ToE does not meet the SM. That wasn’t their attempt but they did accomplish that task

    Thanks guys. Your other friends keep insisting it DOES meet the SM. We know better.

  192. on 07 Oct 2013 at 4:58 am 192.Angus and Alexis said …

    A said
    “Another admission from Alexis and his made up friend that ToE does not meet the SM. That wasn’t their attempt but they did accomplish that task”

    You got me wrong A, ToE does fit the scientific method, it simply does not fit YOUR scientific method.

  193. on 07 Oct 2013 at 10:07 am 193.freddies_dead said …

    981.A40Y-HorX-Troll said …

    “Give me a natural process that will write complex information code like DNA from, mud? water? Hydrogen?????”

    The Big Answer: Chemical reactions.

    ROTFL!!!!!!!!!!!!! This was the best and funniest! Ok, I’ll bite, show me a chemical reaction that writes the complex information from mud? water? hydrogen? What? Hey transistors write the code for the Windows 8 OS? lol!!!!!!!!!

    So you don’t think chemical reactions contain complex information code but the nucleic acid sequence of DNA (denoted by the 4 letters GACT) is so complex it couldn’t possibly be natural? I do love it when you don’t even understand your own questions. It’s even better when you realise that DNA code is, at it’s core, chemistry. It’s a description of the chemical composition of a living organism. That complex code you keep going on about? It comes from the underlying chemical reactions which form the primary structure of DNA. So thanks for conceding that your “designed” code comes from a natural process i.e. chemical reactions.

    “Why not? How is a fish that shares characteristics with tetrapods not evidence?”

    The same way something that looks designed doesn’t count as evidence of a designer. Right?

    Wrong.

    George H. Smith says it nicely in his book Atheism: The Case Against God

    “Consider the idea that nature itself is the product of design. How could this be demonstrated? Nature, as we have seen, provides the basis of comparison by which we distinguish between designed objects and natural objects. We are able to infer the presence of design only to the extent that the characteristics of an object differ from natural characteristics. Therefore, to claim that nature as a whole was designed is to destroy the basis by which we differentiate between artifacts and natural objects. Evidences of design are those characteristics not found in nature, so it is impossible to produce evidence of design within the context of nature itself. Only if we first step beyond nature, and establish the existence of a supernatural designer, can we conclude that nature is the result of conscious planning. (p. 268)”

    i.e. the design hypothesis is self defeating – if everything is designed you cannot discern design. You must first prove God and you can’t use design as part of that proof.

    Tetrapods already existed for millions of years before your fish therefore this transition already existed, Right?.

    Correction: a species of fish is thought to have exhibited tetrapod characteristics before Tiktaalik did, but, yes, thank you for noting that there are other transitional forms besides Tiktaalik. However, and despite your alleged hours in biology classes, you still think that, just because a different species developed tetrapod characteristics earlier, the later development of tetrapod characteristics in another species doesn’t count. It’s brilliant. I guess you must have slept all through the classes on convergent evolution.

    LOL, and you know biology!

    Better than you obviously.

    Time to pullout the The Coelacanth fish.

    Oh dear, you should put it back. Quick! Before someone sees ….. too late! Are you going to call it a “living fossil” for us? Claim that it disproves evolution because it doesn’t evolve? You do realise that the modern coelacanths have been placed in their own genus as they do not share enough similarities with any of their fossil ancestors? For example, the modern coelecanth species (Latimeria) is 3 times larger than it’s closest extinct relative (Macropoma). They’ve evolved every bit as much as any other organism on the planet. Why are they similar to their extinct ancestors? Because natural selection is a conservative process – it tends to mean that useful adaptations are kept from 1 generation to the next.

    Is it still transitional to land animals?

    I’m unaware of anyone claiming that coelecanths were part of the lineage that led to land animals. So, as it never has been “transitional to land animals” it can’t “still” be “transitional to land animals”.

    “Crick himself noted that it was actually more likely that life arose spontaneously on Earth”

    Produce the math of the probability of these two options. Then we can deduce which is more likely. Maybe his aliens planted seeds for each species? lol, at least I gave you something to research. Well done little guy!

    Why should I produce the maths to back up Crick? You presented him as a possible alternative, why aren’t you checking his claims? And if you don’t believe his theory why don’t you present one you do believe instead? And we all know how you don’t like to “wade through” evidence but you should really do a bit of research yourself sometime so you don’t come out sounding like a complete moron all the time.

    “I call bullshit.”

    Nobody cares

    I never claimed that they did.

    “If you were in those classes you must have been asleep.”

    Not only did I take HS and College Biology, my daughter was a biology major now working on a PHd in Neuroscience. She also doesn’t buy it :)

    Is your daughter being as dumb as you supposed to make a difference?

    You don’t believe but I don’t really care.

    Of course I don’t believe you. Your words tend to contradict your grandiose claims and you have a history of dishonesty on this blog.

    You still have produced zilch to prove the “best explanation”, other than opinion.

    Lol, you’re still denying reality. Your choice of course.

    Summarize:

    Its not fact.(admitted by you but not some biologist)

    Evolution is fact. The ToE is the best explanation.

    It is only an explanation with huge holes,

    Shame you’re utterly unable to point out any of thee “huge holes” you claim the ToE has. Anyone would think that they don’t actually exist – they don’t – they’re a lot like your God in that respect.

    no beginning

    Which the ToE has never claimed to explain so isn’t a problem at all.

    and has never been observed on a macro level.

    Except that it has, but you refuse to “wade through” the evidence to find out.

    Too Easy!

    It always is “too easy” to show where you’re wrong. Easy, but fun.

  194. on 07 Oct 2013 at 1:37 pm 194.A40Y-HorX-Troll said …

    “you don’t think chemical reactions contain complex information code but the nucleic acid sequence of DNA (denoted by the 4 letters GACT) is so complex it couldn’t possibly be natural?”

    ROTFL!!!, well…..yes……yes I do. But lets back track, shall we, to the original question, hmmm? How did DNA, through natural processes, develop a code similar in complexity to the Widows 8 OS from the ooze/mud/ muck?

    “Shame you’re utterly unable to point out any of thee “huge holes””

    Never observed on macro level?
    No clue how it all began?
    No process for writing and designing complex code?

    “Nobody cares
    I never claimed that they did.”

    Then why bother? Put do PLEASE, you and Agnus keep posting, this is too good. I do care….I do.

    Lol!!! Now the claim is ToE is fact. Could you atheist get together and figure out if it is fact or not? You can’t even agree on THAT point! Lol!!!!!

  195. on 07 Oct 2013 at 1:42 pm 195.A40Y-HorX-Troll said …

    ” species of fish is thought to have exhibited tetrapod characteristics before Tiktaalik did, but, yes, thank you for noting that there are other transitional forms besides Tiktaalik”

    Correction: there are no transitionals until you can prove it. A similarity does not a transitional make.
    Your fish is as big a failure as Java Man.

    NEXT!

  196. on 07 Oct 2013 at 2:54 pm 196.freddies_dead said …

    994.A40Y-HorX-Troll said …

    “you don’t think chemical reactions contain complex information code but the nucleic acid sequence of DNA (denoted by the 4 letters GACT) is so complex it couldn’t possibly be natural?”

    ROTFL!!!, well…..yes……yes I do.

    I love it when you compound your stupidity. Here you’ve admitted that you don’t think chemical reactions contain complex information code despite me pointing out that it is these chemical reactions that determine the DNA sequence you believe is too complex to come from anything natural.

    But lets back track, shall we, to the original question, hmmm? How did DNA, through natural processes, develop a code similar in complexity to the Widows 8 OS from the ooze/mud/ muck?

    And the answer is still the chemical reactions you’ve admitted are natural because you don’t think they’re complex. You really should have done your research.

    Like I’ve mentioned before, it’s funny when you don’t even understand the implications of your own questions.

    “Shame you’re utterly unable to point out any of thee “huge holes””

    Never observed on macro level?

    Yes it has.

    No clue how it all began?

    Abiogenesis is still not an issue for evolution.

    No process for writing and designing complex code?

    Well, because you’ve no real idea of how science works, you’ve already admitted that chemical reactions are natural and it is those reactions that generate the DNA code you like to call complex (even though you refuse to define what you mean by complex in this context).

    “Nobody cares
    I never claimed that they did.”

    Then why bother? Put do PLEASE, you and Agnus keep posting, this is too good. I do care….I do.

    Because it’s huge fun demonstrating your stupidity time and again.

    Lol!!! Now the claim is ToE is fact.

    Now you’re just lying through your teeth again. I’ve already stated, evolution is fact, the ToE is the best explanation of those facts.

    Could you atheist get together and figure out if it is fact or not? You can’t even agree on THAT point! Lol!!!!!

    There’s nothing in the concept of atheism that mandates we should agree on anything more than 1 thing – the shared lack of Gods.

  197. on 07 Oct 2013 at 3:18 pm 197.freddies_dead said …

    995.A40Y-HorX-Troll said …

    ” species of fish is thought to have exhibited tetrapod characteristics before Tiktaalik did, but, yes, thank you for noting that there are other transitional forms besides Tiktaalik”

    Correction: there are no transitionals until you can prove it.

    Well as I have proved it then there’s nothing more to say about it. Not that you’ve managed to give a single valid objection to any of the evidence presented so far anyway. This despite the extensive biology training you claim to have undergone.

    A similarity does not a transitional make.

    Oh but that’s where you’re wrong again. It’s the similarities (and the differences of course) which mark out a fossil as a good example of a transitional form. In the case of Tiktaalik it is still a fish but the neck, shoulders and arms mark it out as being transitional between fish and tetrapods.

    Your fish is as big a failure as Java Man.

    So not a failure at all then, thanks for conceding that point as well.

    NEXT!

    Well we were trying to talk about prayer originally but you seem to prefer sharing your almost complete ignorance on things like science, the nature of evidence and evolution instead. I’m happy either way. You can always pray for help after all. Maybe your God will throw you a bone to try and ease the humiliation of being responsible for creating a cretin such as yourself.

  198. on 07 Oct 2013 at 3:42 pm 198.Angus and Alexis said …

    I love A’s arguments…

    “Evolution is false!”

    Umm why?

    “Because a fish is not evidence!”

    Well, it is, but here, have a link to plenty of evidence. *link*

    “Not evidence, post evidence of it happening”

    That link has the evidence that you need, just look at it please…

    “No.”

    Why the hell not?

    “Because a fish is not evidence”…

    *sigh…*

  199. on 07 Oct 2013 at 7:48 pm 199.A40Y-HorX-Troll said …

    “pointing out that it is these chemical reactions that determine the DNA sequence you believe is too complex to come from anything natural”

    I know, I’m just logical like that. Although transistors are the source of BCD that computers use, I still believe intelligence actually uses said transistors to perform the logical sequences. The transistors did not by chance perform the logical needed sequences.

    Lol!! Only someone delusional would believe that.

    ROTFL!!!!!

  200. on 07 Oct 2013 at 7:52 pm 200.A40Y-HorX-Troll said …

    “Not that you’ve managed to give a single valid objection to any of the evidence presented so far anyway”

    Sure I did, you failed to prove it using the SM. Simple, use it and prove the “lob” is a future claw, foot, hand or whatever you think it is morphing into. Lol!!!!!!!! Your swamp man, maybe?

Trackback This Post | Subscribe to the comments through RSS Feed

Leave a Reply