Feed on Posts or Comments 08 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 07 Oct 2013 at 10:45 pm 1.Curmudgeon said …

    “Your fish is as big a failure as Java Man”

    There is all you need to know. Freddie believes Java man actually proves his point. He probably still holds on to Piltdown man as well. Go ahead and thrown in the lies and the fakes just as long as they prove their ends. Goes to show how much of humanity remains clueless A.

  2. on 08 Oct 2013 at 12:35 am 2.the messenger said …

    Was Hitler really a Christian or was he just using the knowledge of Christianity that came from his Catholic schooling as a propaganda tool? I think the deeds of his regime answer that much more clearly than words could so let us look at what Nazism did and tried to do:
    Adolf Hitler was politically astute enough to maintain some public distance between himself and the Neo-Pagan ideologues of the Nazi Party. But he was not far from them at heart. After his death documentation became available showing that Hitler had approved grandiose plans to wean the German churches away from Christianity and into the Neo-Pagan fold. To quote Shirer in The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich:
    “…under the leadership of Rosenberg, Bormann and Himmler, who were backed by Hitler, the Nazi regime intended eventually to destroy Christianity in Germany, if it could, and substitute the old paganism of the early tribal Germanic gods and the new paganism of the Nazi extremists. As Bormann, one of the men closest to Hitler, said publicly in 1941, ‘National Socialism and Christianity are irreconcilable.’

    Hitler was against Christianity and Judaism. If you are against Christianity and Judaism, then you are just like Hitler.

  3. on 08 Oct 2013 at 8:49 am 3.freddies_dead said …

    999.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.

    And now you demonstrate an ignorance of logic to go with all the other things you know nothing about.

    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.

    Irrelevant. You already conceded that chemical reactions were natural, therefore it’s possible for a natural process to generate your supposedly “designed” DNA code. It’s not my fault your failure to research something has led to you undermining your whole argument.

    Lol!! Only someone delusional would believe that.

    ROTFL!!!!!

    The only delusion here is your belief that you have an argument any more. You didn’t have much of one to start with and now you’ve defeated what was left all by yourself. I’m loving it.

  4. on 08 Oct 2013 at 8:58 am 4.freddies_dead said …

    1000.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.

    Lying again. Nothing new with you though. I presented the evidence, found using the SM. You either dismissed it without reason or refused to even examine it as you weren’t prepared to “wade through” it.

    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?

    And once more you display your ignorance for everyone to see. No-one but you has ever mentioned a “lob”, whatever that may be. Deliberately misunderstanding the term “lobe finned fish” is just your usual dishonesty at play. The tetrapod characteristics (neck, shoulders and arms) were noted by actual scientists who stayed awake in their biology classes. If you want to argue that those structures aren’t what those scientists determined them to be then you need to show why not. Stop your bleating and do something you’ve yet to manage – provide some evidence that backs up your claims.

  5. on 08 Oct 2013 at 9:34 am 5.freddies_dead said …

    1001.Curmudgeon said …

    “Your fish is as big a failure as Java Man”

    There is all you need to know. Freddie believes Java man actually proves his point.

    Do you have some evidence that shows the Trinil and Sangiran fossils, commonly referred to as Java Man, are a hoax? I know some creationists have previously tried to do this … and failed.

    He probably still holds on to Piltdown man as well.

    Lol, creationists like to bring up Piltdown man because they delusionally believe that the existence of one hoax must mean that all the fossils are hoaxes. This is nothing more than the fallacy of composition. It’s also funny because you’re trying to denigrate scientists for lying when it was scientists who uncovered the hoax.

    Go ahead and thrown in the lies and the fakes just as long as they prove their ends.

    Nah, I’ll leave that to the creationists like A who can’t support their arguments without lying.

    Goes to show how much of humanity remains clueless A.

    You and A are prime examples. Thanks for putting your hands up so we can all see your stupidity.

  6. on 08 Oct 2013 at 9:40 am 6.alex said …

    “If you are against Christianity and Judaism, then you are just like Hitler.”

    welcome back, motherfucker. early probation from your child molestation sentence and now you’re back to fucking with this blog?

    shit is what I wipe off that’s against my atheist ass. if you are against the atheist asses, then you are just like shit? moron.

  7. on 08 Oct 2013 at 9:43 am 7.freddies_dead said …

    1002.the messenger said …

    Ooo look, messy’s back. “Has he got anything useful to say?” I hear you ask and, of course, the answer is “fuck, no”. He just decided to Godwin the thread (via a cut and paste from elsewhere) and say anyone who is against Christianity is just like Hitler.

    You know what messy, you should just go fuck yourself.

  8. on 08 Oct 2013 at 11:55 am 8.A40Y-HorX-Troll said …

    ‘they delusionally believe that the existence of one hoax must mean that all the fossils are hoaxes.”

    Sort of like atheists who think because some gods are not real means there is none real?

    No little guys, you provide the proof we will believe. Like how Fred throws in anther village in Java in order to see intelligent? lol!!!

    Java, Pilt, Nebraska, Lucy and your fish all have NOT proven macroevolution is true, unless……….this is all you require for evidence for God?

    Poor Freedie does even know when his chain is be yanked. lol!! sigh!

  9. on 08 Oct 2013 at 3:53 pm 9.freddies_dead said …

    1008.A40Y-HorX-Troll said …

    ‘they delusionally believe that the existence of one hoax must mean that all the fossils are hoaxes.”

    Sort of like atheists who think because some gods are not real means there is none real?

    I have yet to read any atheist on this site make that claim, but they would be as wrong as you are if they did. That’s certainly not why I believe your God doesn’t exist. I believe as I do because the claims made about the Christian God are, among other things, logically incoherent and historically inaccurate.

    No little guys, you provide the proof we will believe.

    This is a lie, but dishonesty is nothing new with A. The proof has been provided, but because A must’ve fallen asleep in every biology class he claims to have taken, and is too lazy to “wade through” the rest of the evidence he simply lies about not having been given proof.

    Like how Fred throws in anther village in Java in order to see intelligent? lol!!!

    Lol, A doesn’t like being presented with facts that show him to be wrong.

    Java, Pilt, Nebraska, Lucy and your fish all have NOT proven macroevolution is true, unless……….this is all you require for evidence for God?

    Piltdown man was a hoax (uncovered by scientists) and “Nebraska man” turned out to have been misidentified, but Java man, Lucy and Tiktaalik are all examples of transitional forms and are therefore evidence that supports the ToE. Just those 3 are already more evidence than you have ever presented to support your God claim. They’re also not the only evidence that supports the ToE as you have been told many times now, but your laziness stops you from “wading through” any more of the 150+ years worth of evidence in support of the ToE.

    Poor Freedie does even know when his chain is be yanked. lol!! sigh!

    Poor A doesn’t even know how to yank someone’s chain. He thinks displaying his ignorance for all to see somehow falsifies evolution when all it does is mark him out as a supreme cretin.

  10. on 08 Oct 2013 at 4:52 pm 10.the messenger said …

    1007.freddies_dead, I know that you are a bit slow in the head, so I will make this simple.

    Christianity and Judaism is based on GOD’s teachings of love, humility, kindness, faith, compassion, selflessness, and generosity.

    Atheists oppose Christianity and Judaism, and therefore oppose the teachings of love, kindness, faith, humility, compassion, selflessness, and generosity, just like Hitler and Stalin.

    Atheists are not any different than Stalin and Hitler.

  11. on 08 Oct 2013 at 5:43 pm 11..A40Y-HorX-Troll said …

    “claims made about the Christian God are, among other things, logically incoherent and historically inaccurate.”

    How do you know? You are nothing but the result of random processes guided by no intelligence. How can you know if your data is coherent and logical. Actually you seem to be a chaotic mess with no idea of logic, evidence or the scientific method. Lol!!!!

    “Lucy and Tiktaalik are all examples of transitional forms and are therefore evidence that supports the ToE”

    Prove it! I say they were apes and fish. Prove otherwise. Now, I will give credit. Some very cute artistic drawings. Lol!!!!!!!

  12. on 08 Oct 2013 at 5:51 pm 12..A40Y-HorX-Troll said …

    Frederick,

    Are you the atheist who says ToE is fact or the one who says its not a fact? I couldn’t recall? Lol!!!!

  13. on 08 Oct 2013 at 11:28 pm 13.alex said …

    “Are you the atheist who says ToE is fact or the one who says its not a fact?”

    whether it is or not doesn’t do a damn thing for your god, does it? same shit for aliens seeding the earth.

    so, if toe is not fact, what makes your god the real deal? what? jesus on the dog’s butt? mary statue crying? god answering prayers the same rate as praying to the volcano? no? pray tell, motherfucker.

  14. on 09 Oct 2013 at 12:27 am 14.Curmudgeon said …

    “Lucy and Tiktaalik are all examples of transitional forms and are therefore evidence that supports the ToE”

    What an incredibly stupid statement. Lucy is 40% complete and does nothing to prove evolution unless you are just determined to believe. It looks like an extinct ape. Not even the anthropological community completely agrees. So to say it proves anything is pure idiocy. “A” already shot down Tiktaalik very well.

    Freddie if you believe then fine believe. But at least get educated as to why you believe. Your claims are just nonsense.

  15. on 09 Oct 2013 at 12:38 am 15.Curmudgeon said …

    Freedie this tops all your stupidity:

    “Irrelevant. You already conceded that chemical reactions were natural, therefore it’s possible for a natural process to generate your supposedly “designed” DNA code.”

    Are you familiar with the field of information coding? It is a fascinating field, I could recommend a great book. Anyhow, DNA is not low information code, it it falls under the category of high information code. It is not a simple set of instructions which just repeat but contains huge amounts of complex data. Now, you really want us to believe these chemicals formed, in the right order, to provide large amounts of information, that provides all of the information for a cell to operate? A cell that mimics the systems of an entire city? If you believe this you are a complete imbecile.

    Seriously, are you truly this mind numbingly ignorant or are you just that desperate to protect your atheism?

  16. on 09 Oct 2013 at 8:50 am 16.freddies_dead said …

    1010.the messenger said …

    1007.freddies_dead, I know that you are a bit slow in the head, so I will make this simple.

    Christianity and Judaism is based on GOD’s teachings of love, humility, kindness, faith, compassion, selflessness, and generosity.

    Lol, you demonstrate such Christian “love, humility, kindness, faith, compassion, selflessness, and generosity” every time you call people who don’t agree with you “Hitler”.

    Atheists oppose Christianity and Judaism, and therefore oppose the teachings of love, kindness, faith, humility, compassion, selflessness, and generosity, just like Hitler and Stalin.

    Atheists are not any different than Stalin and Hitler.

    And there’s that Christian “love, humility, kindness, faith, compassion, selflessness, and generosity” again.

    Go fuck yourself messy.

  17. on 09 Oct 2013 at 8:59 am 17.freddies_dead said …

    1011..A40Y-HorX-Troll said …

    “claims made about the Christian God are, among other things, logically incoherent and historically inaccurate.”

    How do you know?

    Logic and reason.

    You are nothing but the result of random processes guided by no intelligence.

    The processes (natural selection etc…) aren’t random. Do you have any argument to support your claim that a guiding intelligence is required? After all, chemical reactions (that you have conceded are natural) created the DNA code you claim is so “complex” it could only have been designed.

    How can you know if your data is coherent and logical.

    Logic and reason.

    Actually you seem to be a chaotic mess with no idea of logic, evidence or the scientific method. Lol!!!!

    Yet more autobiographical statements from A, our resident idiot.

    “Lucy and Tiktaalik are all examples of transitional forms and are therefore evidence that supports the ToE”

    Prove it!

    Already done.

    I say they were apes and fish.

    With characteristics that were neither ape-like or fish-like, yes.

    Prove otherwise.

    Already done.

    Now, I will give credit. Some very cute artistic drawings. Lol!!!!!!!

    Whoop-de-doo.

  18. on 09 Oct 2013 at 9:01 am 18.freddies_dead said …

    1012..A40Y-HorX-Troll said …

    Frederick,

    Are you the atheist who says ToE is fact or the one who says its not a fact? I couldn’t recall? Lol!!!!

    Hardly a surprise, it takes some small effort to remember things and you’ve demonstrated over and over that you’re far too lazy for that.

  19. on 09 Oct 2013 at 9:54 am 19.freddies_dead said …

    1014.Curmudgeon said …

    “Lucy and Tiktaalik are all examples of transitional forms and are therefore evidence that supports the ToE”

    What an incredibly stupid statement.

    I’m going to guess you’re talking about what you’re about to say next here…

    Lucy is 40% complete and does nothing to prove evolution unless you are just determined to believe.

    Yup, I was right. You obviously know very little about hominid fossils. If you did you’d realise that 40% of a while skeleton is actually an incredible find which provided a huge amount of data to work with.

    I also never claimed Lucy was anything but evidence that supports the ToE. The process of evolution is fact, we know that from genetics, and it’s transitional forms like Lucy (Java Man and Tiktaalik) that enable scientists to better explain how modern biodiversity came about through the evolutionary process.

    It looks like an extinct ape.

    It certainly had some ape-like features but walked upright like humans and had a much more human-like pelvis and feet.

    Not even the anthropological community completely agrees.

    The argument surrounds whether the genus of Australopithecus that Lucy belonged to was a direct ancestor of modern humans not whether it’s a transitional form.

    So to say it proves anything is pure idiocy.

    I didn’t claim that it “proved” anything. I said it was evidence that supports the ToE, which it is. However, to address your point, it does prove that there were organisms that had both ape and human features so to claim that it doesn’t prove something is what’s idiotic here.

    “A” already shot down Tiktaalik very well.

    Lol, no he didn’t. He’s done absolutely fuck all about showing Tiktaalik didn’t exhibit the tetrapod characteristics that mark it out as a good example of a transitional form.

    Freddie if you believe then fine believe. But at least get educated as to why you believe.

    Oh but I have educated myself. If only you or A could say the same thing instead of you just regurgitating a few lame old creationist bullet points.

    Your claims are just nonsense.

    Your baseless assertion is duly dismissed.

  20. on 09 Oct 2013 at 10:50 am 20.freddies_dead said …

    1015.Curmudgeon said …

    Freedie this tops all your stupidity:

    “Irrelevant. You already conceded that chemical reactions were natural, therefore it’s possible for a natural process to generate your supposedly “designed” DNA code.”

    How is noting that DNA is the result of chemical reactions “stupid”?

    Are you familiar with the field of information coding?

    Presuming you’re talking about information (or coding) theory then, yes, I’m familiar with it.

    It is a fascinating field, I could recommend a great book.

    I doubt that.

    Anyhow, DNA is not low information code, it it falls under the category of high information code. It is not a simple set of instructions which just repeat but contains huge amounts of complex data.

    Are you going to do what A couldn’t and define things like “information” and “complexity” which will actually allow you to quantify what constitutes a “high information code”? Are you going to explain why simpler structures can’t be combined to create more complex ones – such as when phosphates, sugars and bases combine to create nucleotides?

    Now, you really want us to believe these chemicals formed, in the right order, to provide large amounts of information, that provides all of the information for a cell to operate?

    Are you saying DNA isn’t formed by chemical reactions? This is brilliant, how’s it done then? Pixies? Magic? Wait, wait, don’t tell me, “goddidit” right? The God you refuse to present evidence for, did it? Yes? It’s a huge shame that you’ve missed this year’s Nobel awards, but I’m sure you could present your “Magic Sky-Pixie Theory of poofing DNA into existence” for next year’s prizes. Go for it Curmie, you could stride this world as a Colossus with your Nobel in one hand and a Bible in the other.

    …Unless you don’t actually have the evidence to support your intelligent design claim? That all you have is the argument from ignorance that something is “sooooo complex it just couldn’t have formed naturally”. Just like all the other IDers who have made the claim but failed to present even a single valid hypothesis let alone the evidence to support it.

    A cell that mimics the systems of an entire city? If you believe this you are a complete imbecile.

    I’m a “complete imbecile” for accepting what scientists have discovered about chemical reactions underpinning the formation of DNA? It’s good to know there’s someone who can put all those pesky scientists straight – what with all their useless book-learning and experimenting to find things out. They could have just come to you Curmie and you could have told them “goddidit”. No need for evidence you silly scientists, just accept that the Magic Sky-Pixie makes the DNA while you’re not looking.

    Seriously, are you truly this mind numbingly ignorant or are you just that desperate to protect your atheism?

    I’m not the one refusing to examine the evidence here. I’m only too happy to both present it and defend it. That’s not something either you or A can say, having producing precisely no evidence to support your own claims.

    I also haven’t had to “protect” my atheism. You’ve presented nothing that endangers it. No evidence that intercessory prayer works. No evidence to support your claim that the Christian God exists. Nothing to support the claims of intelligent design. Nothing. Nada. Zip. Zero. If you ever do decide to try, I’ll be here.

  21. on 09 Oct 2013 at 11:17 am 21..A40Y-HorX-Troll said …

    “Now, you really want us to believe these chemicals formed, in the right order, to provide large amounts of information”

    Lol! He does. Chemicals right out of the primordial mud. He doesn’t need evidence, he just states “couldov”. Little green elves “couldov” done it. Lol!!

    You know, more I think about it, the transistors on my laptop built my laptop. Based on Frederick theory it couldov….its a great theory…..it never needs to be proven but only needs a couldov.

    ROTFL!

  22. on 09 Oct 2013 at 1:20 pm 22.freddies_dead said …

    1021..A40Y-HorX-Troll said …

    “Now, you really want us to believe these chemicals formed, in the right order, to provide large amounts of information”

    Lol! He does.

    Because they did and they do. You have no answer to this so resort to denying reality instead.

    Chemicals right out of the primordial mud. He doesn’t need evidence, he just states “couldov”. Little green elves “couldov” done it. Lol!!

    Unlike you I don’t need little green elves or sky-pixies. Chemical reactions happen – there’s no “couldov” about it – and they produce the nucleotides that make up DNA. You disagree with these facts? Ok, you go ahead and provide your alternative hypothesis (directed panspermia, lol) and the evidence you believe supports it. What’s that? You have no evidence? You’re too lazy to learn about chemistry? And you refuse to wade through yet another mound of evidence that supports the theory of evolution? Well, colour me unsurprised. The lazy, know nothing A is going to simply deny reality once more.

    You know, more I think about it, the transistors on my laptop built my laptop.

    That’s no more absurd than your belief that a magic sky-pixie did it, so I’m not surprised that it’s something you’d believe.

    Based on Frederick theory it couldov….its a great theory…..it never needs to be proven but only needs a couldov.

    My theory that chemical reactions happen and it’s those chemical reactions that generate the nucleotides which make up DNA you mean? That theory that’s not actually mine – or a theory – but is something actual scientists (that stayed awake in science class) have found out while investigating DNA. That “theory” that you have absolutely no answer to. That “theory” that completely screws your “complex code can’t come from nature” bullshit.

    ROTFL!

    Indeed.

  23. on 09 Oct 2013 at 3:59 pm 23..A40Y-HorX-Troll said …

    “You disagree with these facts?”

    No, I disagree with stupidity. Lol!!

    Again, where is the proof chemicals sequenced themselves to provide a highly complex OS ……… sigh…. Couldov is not proof……sigh. Yes we know since the process started it now replicates, we are speaking of the original…..sigh..

    When you have it, contact your local university because you will have proven “abiogenesis”. Lol!!!!

    So did my transistors build my laptop Frederick? You believe that? If chemicals write their own code, build cells and eventually an organism why can’t my transistors? Lol!!!!!!!!!!!

    I hear Gates is firing his staff and allowing transistors to write the next Windows OS!! Lol!!!!!

  24. on 09 Oct 2013 at 4:28 pm 24.freddies_dead said …

    1023..A40Y-HorX-Troll said …

    “You disagree with these facts?”

    No, I disagree with stupidity. Lol!!

    You disagree with yourself? I don’t blame you really.

    Again, where is the proof chemicals sequenced themselves to provide a highly complex OS ……… sigh…. Couldov is not proof……sigh. Yes we know since the process started it now replicates, we are speaking of the original…..sigh..

    Go learn some chemistry you’ll find the proof of how chemicals bond to form nucleotides there. Oh wait, you’re too fucking lazy. As for where the first replicating molecules came from, go learn about the Miller-Urey experiments and the follow up work done by many scientists. Oh wait, we already you’re too lazy to do that either.

    When you have it, contact your local university because you will have proven “abiogenesis”. Lol!!!!

    Where did I say that knowing some of the mechanisms that form DNA means scientists now know how to create life? Oh wait, I didn’t, I just pointed out that it is chemical reactions that generate the nucleotides which form DNA – you still have no answer to this so you’re lying about what I said – this is nothing new with you.

    So did my transistors build my laptop Frederick? You believe that?

    No, you said you did. Have you changed your mind again?

    If chemicals write their own code, build cells and eventually an organism why can’t my transistors? Lol!!!!!!!!!!!

    What, apart from transistors not being self-replicating you mean? Your analogy has always fallen down at that point but you don’t have enough knowledge of biology to understand the implications.

    I hear Gates is firing his staff and allowing transistors to write the next Windows OS!! Lol!!!!!

    And back to your delusions. By the way, as you believe that, I’ve got this bridge you might be interested in buying.

  25. on 09 Oct 2013 at 5:25 pm 25..A40Y-HorX-Troll said …

    “What, apart from transistors not being self-replicating you mean”

    Neither was the first DNA. Checkmate. Lol!!!!

    And Frederick still refuses to provide evidence using SM to prove macroecolution, information systems or logic.

    Now transistors “couldof” wrote Windows 8 OS. Right Freddie? How do we know they did nor replicate? Anything is possible if you just Believe! Lol!!

  26. on 09 Oct 2013 at 7:02 pm 26.the messenger said …

    1016.freddies_dead, I am not doing this out of hate, but out of love. I want to save you from the evil that has corrupted you all.

    No one can deny the fact that atheists have a long history of murder and hate, because it is a fact.

    I do not call all of my opponents “hitler”, I was simply comparing atheists to hitler(hitler was one of your fellow atheists”).

    If I hated you, I would simply let you people continue your hateful ways. But I do not hate you, I am warning you about the evil inside you, and trying to save you all from it.

  27. on 10 Oct 2013 at 9:50 am 27.Angus and Alexis said …

    1026.the messenger said …
    *Snip*

    Bloody hell..

    Messenger, Hitler was a christian, the pope and catholic church supported him, deal with it.

    Atheists have just as much love as theists, ironically, we actually have more, being that we accept homosexuals and such.

    I am an atheist, and i am truthfully moral, that destroys your argument doesn’t it?

    Atheists do indeed have a history of murder and hate, theists do to, deal with it.

  28. on 10 Oct 2013 at 11:44 am 28.Anonymous said …

    1025..A40Y-HorX-Troll said …

    “What, apart from transistors not being self-replicating you mean”

    Neither was the first DNA. Checkmate. Lol!!!!

    This just demonstrates your utter lack of knowledge when it comes to biology. I’d say go and look up what DNA actually is but you’re way too lazy for that. One of the main features of DNA is it’s ability to self-replicate. Checkmate indeed.

    And Frederick still refuses to provide evidence using SM to prove macroecolution, information systems or logic.

    Already done. Several times now. You just lie and lie and lie about it though – your usual MO.

    Now transistors “couldof” wrote Windows 8 OS. Right Freddie?

    Do you have any evidence for this bizarre claim? Silly question I know, as you haven’t presented a single shred of evidence for any of the claims you’ve made so far.

    How do we know they did nor replicate?

    They’re not biological organisms for one, but you are welcome to present whatever evidence you have that they do.

    Anything is possible if you just Believe! Lol!!

    That’s part of theistic dogma, yes. Unlike you though, I prefer to base my beliefs on evidence and rule out the things that are logically impossible. Like your impossible claim to a biology education in light of your complete ignorance of the subject and, of course, the existence of the Christian God.

  29. on 10 Oct 2013 at 12:56 pm 29.Anonymous said …

    1026.the messenger said …

    1016.freddies_dead, I am not doing this out of hate, but out of love.

    Your actions contradict your claims. There’s nothing loving about suggesting anyone is just like a man who plunged the world into war and had millions of people exterminated courtesy of his religious beliefs.

    I want to save you from the evil that has corrupted you all.

    Do you have any evidence which demonstrates such evil exists and has corrupted us all?

    No one can deny the fact that atheists have a long history of murder and hate, because it is a fact.

    No, it isn’t, so I’m denying it right here.

    I do not call all of my opponents “hitler”, I was simply comparing atheists to hitler(hitler was one of your fellow atheists”).

    Hitler was no atheist – he was a Christian, his anti-semitism informed by Martin Luther – and there may be a distinction, but no difference, in calling an entire group of people (people you don’t know) “like Hitler”

    If I hated you, I would simply let you people continue your hateful ways.

    What hateful ways? Do you have any evidence that all atheists are plotting world domination and the systematic genocide of Jewish people?

    But I do not hate you, I am warning you about the evil inside you, and trying to save you all from it.

    What evil? Christians invented this “inherent” evil as a way of controlling people. Getting them to buy into your horrific mafia style insurance scam: “That’s a nice soul you’ve got there, it would be a shame if something bad happened to it”.

  30. on 10 Oct 2013 at 3:37 pm 30.Angus and Alexis said …

    Messenger, any further comment?

  31. on 10 Oct 2013 at 4:21 pm 31.the messenger said …

    1027.Angus and Alexis, you are so miss informed.

    The pope during world war two was Pius XII. Pope Pius employed diplomacy to aid victims of the Holocaust, and fought long and hard against antisemitism.

    A German officer and ROMAN CATHOLIC named Claus von Stauffenberg was one of the men who plotted to kill Hitler and stop the holocaust.

    Catholic law (exodus 20:13) clearly states that murder is not allowed. We all know that Hitler broke that law.

    Lastly, leviticus 19:18 clearly states that we must love our neighbors. Hitler broke this law many times by his hate of Jews.

    Hitler did not follow even the most basic Catholic laws, which proves that he was probably the most uncatholic person on the earth.

    Review the facts that I just gave you, and ask your self if hitler was really a catholic. The answers is no, he was not a catholic, he was an atheist just like Stalin.

  32. on 10 Oct 2013 at 4:24 pm 32.the messenger said …

    1076.Angus and Alexis, you are so miss informed.
    The pope during world war two was Pius XII. Pope Pius employed diplomacy to aid victims of the Holocaust, and fought long and hard against antisemitism.
    A German officer and ROMAN CATHOLIC named Claus von Stauffenberg was one of the men who plotted to kill Hitler and stop the holocaust.
    Catholic law (exodus 20:13) clearly states that murder is not allowed. We all know that Hitler broke that law.
    Lastly, leviticus 19:18 clearly states that we must love our neighbors. Hitler broke this law many times by his hate of Jews.
    Hitler did not follow even the most basic Catholic laws, which proves that he was probably the most uncatholic person on the earth.
    Review the facts that I just gave you, and ask your self if hitler was really a catholic. The answers is no, he was not a catholic, he was an atheist just like Stalin.

  33. on 10 Oct 2013 at 4:41 pm 33.the messenger said …

    1078.Anonymous, you misunderstand me.

    I am simply stating that atheists share the same immoral mindset and beliefs that hitler and stalin did.

    Atheists are against catholic beliefs, right. love, forgiveness, humility, compassion, and kindness are Catholic beliefs. If atheists are against Catholic beliefs, then they are also against love, forgiveness, humility, compassion, and kindness. That proves that atheists have no moral guide and are corrupted by evil.

    Martin Luther was a evil, misguided man. He was very unchristian. Which is further evidence of hitler being opposed to catholic/christian beliefs.

  34. on 10 Oct 2013 at 5:59 pm 34.Angus and Alexis said …

    Nice double post Messenger…*sigh*

    1033.the messenger said …
    *radda radda radda bible verse, radda radda radda stalin*

    I guess there is no point trying to get you to believe the truth, so i will just leave it at “Hitler was a christian, deal with it”.

    Lets ask you a simple question, is gay marriage a good thing? Yes or no?

    Lastly, ask me a question on morals, being a “stalinistic hitler nazi atheist” i should by your worldview give a nasty answer.

  35. on 10 Oct 2013 at 7:14 pm 35.the messenger said …

    1034.Angus and Alexis, I do not understand your confusion.

    Within comment 1031 I presented facts pertaining to our debate.

    I provided clear evidence that proves Hitler was not a catholic/christian.

    The facts that I provided in comment 1031 prove that hitler broke many catholic/christian laws, and thus he had no regard for GOD’s laws, and is therefore not a christian/catholic.

    Wake up and smell the facts.

  36. on 10 Oct 2013 at 7:35 pm 36.the messenger said …

    1083.Angus and Alexis, gay marriage is neither good nor bad due to the fact that there is no such thing.

    The DICTIONARY DEFINITION of marriage is “the formal union of a MAN and a WOMAN, typically recognized by law, by which they become husband and wife.

    By definition two people of the same gender cannot become married.

    Furthermore, leviticus 18:22 does not discriminate against homosexual people, it pertains to both heterosexual and homosexual people.

  37. on 10 Oct 2013 at 7:38 pm 37..A40Y-HorX-Troll said …

    “One of the main features of DNA is it’s ability to self-replicate”

    Really? Thanks!

    Of course that was never the issue and you continue to show no understanding of high information systems. So lets simplify, so you can understand.

    The first DNA, from whence did it replicate from?

    Hey, the first amino acid, how did it survive UV, O2 and water not destroying it? Good Luck! Lol!!

    Now to Hitler….he was not a Christian anymore than Obama is. Hitler was a master of propaganda and used religion to gain power. Now if the claim is he was Christian because he went to church as a kid, then most atheists are Christians too!

  38. on 10 Oct 2013 at 7:42 pm 38.alex said …

    “Now to Hitler….he was not a Christian anymore than Obama is.”

    but to this day, your criteria is still nonexistent. otherwise you’d have published it. let’s see it, otherwise you don’t get to say who is a xtian, you moron.

  39. on 11 Oct 2013 at 4:54 am 39.Angus and Alexis said …

    Messenger…

    Christianity: Of, relating to, or professing Christianity or its teachings.

    Hitler did this, therefore he was a christian, deal with it.

    Secondly, ask me that question of morals.

    Lastly, what is your say on legalizing gay marriage, yes, or no?

  40. on 11 Oct 2013 at 11:58 am 40.the messenger said …

    1039.Angus and Alexis

  41. on 11 Oct 2013 at 1:44 pm 41.Angus and Alexis said …

    Messenger said
    *insert nothing here*

    I think you forgot to post anything mate…

  42. on 11 Oct 2013 at 3:28 pm 42..A40Y-HorX-Troll said …

    “you don’t get to say who is a xtian”

    And who is going to stop me? You? No, you will sit back and take it. Most respectable atheist I know even admit Hitler was not a Christian

    Of course alexander, you represent the mindless drones Hitler sold his propaganda too. Drones like to ignore all his quotes against religion and focus on the propaganda he used to get power.

    Show me proof he was a Christian then we will change the court’s decision.

  43. on 11 Oct 2013 at 5:54 pm 43.Angus and Alexis said …

    1044..A40Y-HorX-Troll said …
    And who is going to stop me? You? No, you will sit back and take it.

    Ironically, this statement is similar to fascism…

    Anyway, Hitler was a christian, enough said.

  44. on 11 Oct 2013 at 6:23 pm 44..A40Y-HorX-Troll said …

    “And who is going to stop me? You? No, you will sit back and take it.”

    Huh? To me sounds like free speech of which alexandria would like to suppress. Shouldn’t use big words like fascism of which you don’t know the meaning. Don’t you have some bannings to pursue?

    Lol!!!

  45. on 11 Oct 2013 at 6:50 pm 45.alex said …

    “No, you will sit back and take it.”

    please do tell, moron. let’s see your criteria and apply it to the pope, george bush, obama, and your blog buddy, messenger, but you won’t. cowardly bullshitter.

  46. on 11 Oct 2013 at 8:55 pm 46.alex said …

    where you at, big man xtian designator, motherfucker? you get to say who the real xtians are, don’t you? what’s your criteria? but, just like your morality bullshit, it’s all made up, just like your bullshit god.

    yeah, you’ll appear allright. to resurrect the ocean swimming, toe bullshit, more hitler, and more dna motherfucking programmer.

  47. on 12 Oct 2013 at 4:54 am 47.Angus and Alexis said …

    1046..A40Y-HorX-Troll said …
    “Shouldn’t use big words like fascism of which you don’t know the meaning.”

    Ohh?
    Really?
    “a way of organizing a society in which a government ruled by a dictator controls the lives of the people and in which people are not allowed to disagree with the government”

    Awfully similar to your post.

    “Don’t you have some bannings to pursue?”

    I actually contacted the Admins and Moderators of the forum, they wanted you banned too, sadly they cannot contact the blog master.

  48. on 14 Oct 2013 at 3:37 pm 48.freddies_dead said …

    “What, apart from transistors not being self-replicating you mean”

    1037..A40Y-HorX-Troll said …

    “One of the main features of DNA is it’s ability to self-replicate”

    Really?

    Yes, despite your laughable response of:
    Neither was the first DNA. Checkmate. Lol!!!!
    to me pointing out that transistors aren’t self-replicating DNA has always been able to self-replicate.

    Thanks!

    You’re welcome.

    Of course that was never the issue and you continue to show no understanding of high information systems.

    It was the issue at the time, you kept using the analogy of transistors for DNA, I merely pointed out where the analogy fell down. But we’re used to you moving the goalposts whenever you’ve been shown to be wrong so this comes as no surprise.

    You’ve yet to define what a “high information system” is. Or what makes that somehow more special than a “low information system” or a “medium information system”. You’ve not defined complexity in this context and you’ve yet to show how any of this pertains to evolution in any way. In short, you’ve simpy regurgitated some words you think mean evolution couldn’t possibly happen, but you’ve not shown any indication that you can make a coherent argument to that end out of those words.

    So lets simplify, so you can understand.

    I already understand where you’re going with this. You’re aiming for the point at which science has to say “I don’t know” because you think you can cram your God into that gap. Which is fine by me because at that point you’re going to have to back up your God claim. You’re finally going to have to present some evidence that suggests your claims are something other than a fallacious argument from ignorance.

    The first DNA, from whence did it replicate from?

    The current scientific hypothesis is that it evolved from RNA. Have we reached your gap yet? Do you have a better idea? Let’s hear it … and your supporting evidence of course. I predict this won’t be forthcoming.

    Hey, the first amino acid, how did it survive UV, O2 and water not destroying it? Good Luck! Lol!!

    I suspect it did it the same way it does now i.e. by just plain not being overly susceptible to those substances or by joining together in peptide chains and forming proteins etc… They are after all mostly conglomerations of carbon, hydrogen, oxygen and nitrogen and scientists find them on meteorites meaning they’ve managed to survive the extremes of deep space – a bit of water and sunlight is unlikely to be much of a problem.

    Now to Hitler….he was not a Christian anymore than Obama is.

    I believe alex has already asked you to define your criteria for who is Christian and who is not.

    Hitler was a master of propaganda and used religion to gain power.

    Well, without your “True Christian” criteria, we can’t know whether he used religion because he truly believed in it’s power or simply because he felt it was the easiest way.

    Now if the claim is he was Christian because he went to church as a kid, then most atheists are Christians too!

    Can you can point us to where someone has made such a claim?

  49. on 14 Oct 2013 at 8:52 pm 49.A40Y-HorX-Troll said …

    “You’ve yet to define what a “high information system” is”

    Lol!! Oh my gosh, are you really so inept? Try google, like you did for DNA replicating from RNA! Lol!!! Too funny! Or amino acids suddenly immune to UV, O2 and contaminates! Lol!! Wow! Some really finny stuff.

    Hey have you consider aliens? There is a possibility also explored!

    I commend your faith. I just don’t have that much. Your priests have spoken! Follow the light!

  50. on 15 Oct 2013 at 1:27 am 50.alex said …

    “Hey have you consider aliens? There is a possibility also explored!”

    of course, you dipshit. and dismissed as easily as your bullshit god. see, no matter how hard you try, you just can’t hang shit on atheists. are you getting it now? atheists don’t believe in your bullshit god.

    add aliens to your irrelevant list = new array(‘ocean swimming’, ‘toe’, ‘hitler’, ‘dna’).append(‘aliens’);

    how’s that for programming? asshole.

  51. on 15 Oct 2013 at 1:40 am 51.alex said …

    this blog is tired. check out the site “thoughts”. it’s a little crowded, but it’s free for all. i’m wwghatoday and my blogs are tagged “wwgha”.

    cheers. even you martin.

  52. on 15 Oct 2013 at 9:18 am 52.freddies_dead said …

    1049.A40Y-HorX-Troll said …

    “You’ve yet to define what a “high information system” is”

    Lol!! Oh my gosh, are you really so inept?

    You’re the one failing to define your terms.

    Try google,

    Why? Don’t you understand the concepts enough to explain them? Didn’t the creationist website you got the terms from explain them for you?

    like you did for DNA replicating from RNA!

    Are you suggesting Google isn’t a valid search tool now? What alternative do you suggest? I note you don’t deny the likelihood that DNA evolved from RNA.

    Lol!!! Too funny! Or amino acids suddenly immune to UV, O2 and contaminates!

    Do you have any evidence to suggest each of those things are deadly amino acid killers? What about those amino acids that survive the extremities of deep space? What about amino acids that form in water etc…? Why don’t UV, O2 etc… kill them?

    Lol!! Wow! Some really finny stuff.

    I thought we’d moved away from fish?

    Hey have you consider aliens? There is a possibility also explored!

    Considered them for what? The source of life here on Earth? Not really. There’s just as much evidence for aliens as there is for your God i.e. none, nada, zip, zero. If you wish to present them as an alternative you’re first going to have to demonstrate they exist, then you need to show how they are the source of life here on Earth. Off you go.

    I commend your faith.

    What faith? I’ve already shown my beliefs rest on the evidence. Where there is no evidence, i.e. for your God or aliens, I withold my belief.

    I just don’t have that much. Your priests have spoken! Follow the light!

    Now you’re just gibbering.

  53. on 15 Oct 2013 at 5:01 pm 53..A40Y-HorX-Troll said …

    “What about those amino acids that survive the extremities of deep space?”

    What about them? Lol!!! Do you know how many amino acids exists? Do you know how many are used for life? Go ahead, look it up along with information systems…..lol!!!…..yes, that new scientific field creationist made up. ROTFL!!!! Check into hydrolysis along the way.

    You are fun, keep them coming….so you have eliminates aliens? Haven’t we discovered alien dung on an ateroids? Lol!!!!

  54. on 16 Oct 2013 at 12:45 am 54.the messenger said …

    076.Angus and Alexis, you are so miss informed. The pope during world war two was Pius XII. Pope Pius employed diplomacy to aid victims of the Holocaust, and fought long and hard against antisemitism. A German officer and ROMAN CATHOLIC named Claus von Stauffenberg was one of the men who plotted to kill Hitler and stop the holocaust. Catholic law (exodus 20:13) clearly states that murder is not allowed. We all know that Hitler broke that law. Lastly, leviticus 19:18 clearly states that we must love our neighbors. Hitler broke this law many times by his hate of Jews. Hitler did not follow even the most basic Catholic laws, which proves that he was probably the most uncatholic person on the earth. Review the facts that I just gave you, and ask your self if hitler was really a catholic. The answers is no, he was not a catholic, he was an atheist just like Stalin.

  55. on 16 Oct 2013 at 7:09 am 55.Angus and Alexis said …

    No, Messenger, he was a theist, a christian to be precise.

    Now, ask me a question that is moral based, if you are right, i will make the wrong decision.

    Ask away, do not fret.

  56. on 16 Oct 2013 at 11:35 am 56.freddies_dead said …

    1053..A40Y-HorX-Troll said …

    “What about those amino acids that survive the extremities of deep space?”

    What about them? Lol!!!

    Your original question was about how amino acids survived things like UV light, well those amino acids survived it whilst in space i.e. with no protective atmosphere to filter out any of the UV rays. You have no answer to amino acids that survive in water either. It’s evidence that basically pisses all over your objections to amino acid survival.

    Do you know how many amino acids exists?

    Scientists know of around 500.

    Do you know how many are used for life?

    Your question is ambiguous enough that the answer “all of them” would probably be correct. However, humans need 22 of them.

    Go ahead, look it up along with information systems…..lol!!!…..

    I do love the way you mock the idea of gaining knowledge – about par for course for ignorant theists who already think they know it all.

    yes, that new scientific field creationist made up. ROTFL!!!!

    Who said creationists made up the field of information theory? They’re not smart enough for that. What I said was some idiot creationist has taken some of the terms from that field and tried to use them to deny evolution. Of course, the fact that they don’t understand either evolution or information theory shows whenever you try to get them to define their terms or explain how the terms they’re regurgitating actually apply to evolutionary theory. You’re a great example A.

    Check into hydrolysis along the way.

    You mean because you can’t be bothered but think the word sounds all sciency and it somehow might confuse someone into thinking evolution isn’t possible? Hint: the hydrolysis of peptides actually generates amino acids so you’re onto a loser once more.

    You are fun, keep them coming….

    Glad to see you’re amused. Somewhat masochistic though – being happy at having your bullshit fed back to you all the time.

    so you have eliminates aliens?

    Unless you have some evidence of their existence then I see no reason to consider them.

    Haven’t we discovered alien dung on an ateroids? Lol!!!!

    Not that I’ve heard. Maybe you can present the evidence? What am I saying? You? Present evidence? Lol, no chance.

  57. on 16 Oct 2013 at 4:46 pm 57..A40Y-HorX-Troll said …

    “survive in water either. It’s evidence that basically pisses all over your objections to amino acid survival”

    It does? Funny, don’t feel pissed. I look at your posts, you have not proven macroevolution nor do you even know much about abiogenesis. Of course you ignored amino acid creation which when being CREATED can be destroyed by hydrolysis, UV and O2. When you googled alien amino acids did you notice what types of aminos where discovered? Did you find evidence of these aminos being our ancestors? Lol!!!

    Now where is that creationist lexicon……lol!!!!!

    Keep’em coming hun…

  58. on 16 Oct 2013 at 5:54 pm 58..A40Y-HorX-Troll said …

    “somehow might confuse someone into thinking evolution isn’t possible”

    Lol!!! Hey, what happen to the “fact”? Possible? Anything is possible, right? If one is a theist and believes macroevoltion occurred, then possible but still not proven.

    I know, atheists throw in Time and Chance and somehow a brand new Camaro washes up on a beech. Lol!!!!

  59. on 17 Oct 2013 at 10:03 am 59.freddies_dead said …

    1057..A40Y-HorX-Troll said …

    “survive in water either. It’s evidence that basically pisses all over your objections to amino acid survival”

    It does? Funny, don’t feel pissed.

    Yup. Funny you don’t even attempt to make any argument to the contrary either.

    I look at your posts, you have not proven macroevolution

    Except that I have given you the evidence that does prove it. By your own admission you’re simply too lazy to “wade through” it.

    nor do you even know much about abiogenesis.

    Lol, no-one knows much about abiogenesis, but, while I present what scientific evidence there is on the subject, you present … nothing, nada, zip zero. Just some unsupported claims that amino acids can’t survive. Any argument to back up that claim or are you going to stick with the word “hydrolysis” which I’ve already shown to be bullshit?

    Of course you ignored amino acid creation which when being CREATED can be destroyed by hydrolysis, UV and O2.

    And you ignored amino acids which aren’t destroyed by those substances and the ones that weren’t subjected to them during formation. Unless you suddenly have a coherent argument – backed up by evidence of course – that hydrolysis, UV and O2 destroy all amino acids? What’s that? No? Really? I am surprised.

    When you googled alien amino acids did you notice what types of aminos where discovered?

    Yes I did. Did you?

    Did you find evidence of these aminos being our ancestors? Lol!!!

    This is a typically incoherent question from you – of course they aren’t our ancestors and why would anyone expect them to be?

    Lets face it, after you were soundly trounced on the ToE, your move to abiogenisis and amino acids is simply another attempt at a diversion by you.

    However, instead of attempting to prove special creation, by demonstrating the existence of a God etc…, you’ve chosen instead to try and claim natural abiogenesis isn’t possible. Of course you don’t have an actual argument to that effect so you’ve groped around for some sort of killer sciencey sounding crap and plumped for amino acids being unable to survive hydrolysis, UV and O2. Unfortunately amino acids are eminently capable of surviving despite those nasty evil amino acid killers – hell, they can even survive the extremities of deep space. So your objections add up to your usual standard – nothing, zero, zip, nada.

    Now where is that creationist lexicon……lol!!!!!

    Keep’em coming hun…

    Oh I will dearie.

  60. on 17 Oct 2013 at 10:11 am 60.freddies_dead said …

    1058..A40Y-HorX-Troll said …

    “somehow might confuse someone into thinking evolution isn’t possible”

    Lol!!! Hey, what happen to the “fact”?

    Nothing. Your objections and attempts to obfuscate have all failed – mostly because you can’t actually find anything clever enough to confuse people into believing your bullshit.

    Possible? Anything is possible, right?

    Nope. There are many things which simply aren’t logically possible i.e. square circles, your God etc…

    If one is a theist and believes macroevoltion occurred, then possible but still not proven.

    It’s over, done. You’ve been presented with evidence that demonstrates macroevolution happens. All you’ve done in response is refuse to read it – basically you’ve closed your eyes, covered up your ears and shouted “lalalalalalalala” so you couldn’t see how your pitiful objections were summarily dismissed.

    I know, atheists throw in Time and Chance and somehow a brand new Camaro washes up on a beech. Lol!!!!

    You do love your little fairy stories, I guess that’s why you believe in God.

  61. on 17 Oct 2013 at 3:18 pm 61..A40Y-HorX-Troll said …

    “Except that I have given you the evidence that does prove it. By your own admission you’re simply too lazy to “wade through” it.”

    Except you refuse to provide “evidence”. Is this the fish again or the superman aminos riding the asteroids? Lol!

    “Lets face it, after you were soundly trounced on the ToE, your move to abiogenisis and amino acids is simply another attempt at a diversion by you.”

    Yes, lets face it. You have much faith in unproven silly theories. Unless…..you provide evidence? Nah, not happening.

    “you can’t actually find anything clever enough to confuse people into believing your bullshit.”

    I am not asking others to believe life sprang from non-life in the primordial soup. You are! Lol!

    “There are many things which simply aren’t logically possible”

    True, so why do you believe such nonsense?

    “basically you’ve closed your eyes, covered up your ears”

    No, still right here ready to believe. I destroyed your fish and asteroid theories. Waiting for something substantial. I am a man of science who must have evidence which will stand up to the SM.

  62. on 17 Oct 2013 at 3:25 pm 62.DPK said …

    I’ve personally given up on any dialogue with Stan/Hor/40 as he has proven over and over again that he is intellectually dishonest and deceitful in addition to having a very flawed understanding of most of the things he rails against in his now pathetic attempts to try and find some tiny niche in which to cram his imaginary god. I’d feel sorry for him if he was just plain stupid, like our brainwashed village idiot the messenger. But Stan is not stupid, just willfully ignorant, and rather proud of it to boot.
    But I do have to say I immensely enjoy reading Freddie routinely demolish his ridiculous attempts at reasoning… like equating a dna molecule to a transistor and evolution to observing cars wash up out of the ocean.
    Well done Freddie……….

  63. on 18 Oct 2013 at 10:03 am 63.freddies_dead said …

    1061..A40Y-HorX-Troll said …

    “Except that I have given you the evidence that does prove it. By your own admission you’re simply too lazy to “wade through” it.”

    Except you refuse to provide “evidence”.

    How the fuck would you know? You refused to “wade through it”, remember? Jeez but you’re an idiot.

    Is this the fish again or the superman aminos riding the asteroids? Lol!

    The fish is a transitional form, it’s the evidence for evolution found using the SM that you asked for. The asteroid riding aminos were simply evidence that contradicted your pathetic claim that UV and O2 means amino acids couldn’t possibly survive without shelter from Jesus (or whatever other crappy theistic design theory you refuse to present to us says).

    “Lets face it, after you were soundly trounced on the ToE, your move to abiogenisis and amino acids is simply another attempt at a diversion by you.”

    Yes, lets face it. You have much faith in unproven silly theories.

    And we’ve been through this before. Evolution (the process) is a fact. The evidence for it has been provided. Your wilfull refusal to inspect that evidence doesn’t make it disappear … it just makes you look like a lying idiot for claiming none has been presented. Scientific theories, such as the ToE or the Theory of Gravity, Germ Theory etc…, aren’t proven. Instead they must explain the evidence. In the case of evolution that’s a massive amount of evidence (150+ years worth) and the modern synthesis manages to explain it all.

    The main thing to note is that, despite all your pathetic attempts to deny this, you’ve not once posited an alternative (directed panspermia is a theory of origins – one it’s own author later felt wasn’t as probable as the the theory that life arose independently on this planet). You don’t even have the guts to lay out what you believe, or the evidence you claim supports that belief.

    Unless…..you provide evidence? Nah, not happening.

    Already done. You lying about it won’t change that fact either.

    “you can’t actually find anything clever enough to confuse people into believing your bullshit.”

    I am not asking others to believe life sprang from non-life in the primordial soup. You are! Lol!

    You’re not asking others to believe anything because you’re too much of a coward to say, in any detail, what you believe happened. How you think life arose. Note that the creation myth presented in the Christian Bible also claims life came from non-life (God made man from dirt). So apparently it’s absurd for me to suggest it but not for Christianity. Cracking double standard you’ve got there A.

    Plus, of course, I have the evidence that suggests life did indeed come from inorganic compounds (the Miller-Urey experiments plus the subsequent investigation into those original experiments) whilst A refuse to even try and demonstrate that his God exists, let alone that He’s responsible for all life.

    “There are many things which simply aren’t logically possible”

    True, so why do you believe such nonsense?

    Lol, you’ve yet to show that anything I’ve claimed is nonsense.

    “basically you’ve closed your eyes, covered up your ears”

    No, still right here ready to believe.

    Liar. If you were at all interested you’d have examined the evidence presented instead of refusing to “wade through” it.

    I destroyed your fish and asteroid theories.

    Hahahahahahahahahaha! Where? In your own mind perhaps, because you’ve failed to give a single coherent objection to anything I’ve presented on this thread.

    Waiting for something substantial.

    Liar. You were given it and you ran away.

    I am a man of science who must have evidence which will stand up to the SM.

    Oh shit, please, stop it, this has to be the funniest thing you’ve ever said. You don’t understand science, the scientific method or evidence – in fact you run away from evidence. Oh what a joyful start to a Friday. Thanks for being such a knob A.

  64. on 18 Oct 2013 at 11:45 am 64.A40Y-HorX-Troll said …

    “You refused to “wade through it”

    OK, then I will link you to a volume of Systematic Theology books for God! How about that. You will read through them right? lol!!!!
    The difference?
    I have sat in a number of biology classes and read the books! Next!

    “The fish is a transitional form, it’s the evidence for evolution found using the SM”

    Its a fish proven by using the SM. No more. Prove it wrong

    “Evolution (the process) is a fact. The evidence for it has been provided.”

    Great, provide the real evidence, not speculation.

    “You’re not asking others to believe anything because you’re too much of a coward to say, in any detail, what you believe happened.”

    I don’t push my faith on others like you. lol! Besides, you have the facts, right?

    “because you’ve failed to give a single coherent objection to anything”

    You failed to make your case using the SM. Destroyed your case again.

    “I have the evidence that suggests life did indeed come from inorganic compounds (the Miller-Urey experiments”

    OMG!! HAHAHAHAHAHA, still using this failed experiment from the 50s! This proved it “DID”? OK, using the SM method prove it.

  65. on 18 Oct 2013 at 1:16 pm 65.freddies_dead said …

    1064.A40Y-HorX-Troll said …

    “You refused to “wade through it”

    OK, then I will link you to a volume of Systematic Theology books for God! How about that. You will read through them right? lol!!!!

    Are you actually about to present a theory that those books form the evidence for? If so then lets see it.

    The difference?
    I have sat in a number of biology classes and read the books! Next!

    I still call bullshit. You’ve shown yourself to be almost entirely ignorant about any of the biology we’ve discussed so far.

    “The fish is a transitional form, it’s the evidence for evolution found using the SM”

    Its a fish proven by using the SM. No more. Prove it wrong

    Lol, once again your lack of biology knowledge comes shining through. No-one has ever claimed it wasn’t a fish, but the important facts as far as evolution goes are the tetrapod characteristics that mark it out as a transitional form – discovered using the same scientific method that determined it was a fish. Of course you have no response to this so keep whining about it being a fish instead. “It’s a fish”. “It’s a fish”. Well yes, it’s a fish with a neck, shoulder and arms similar to later tetrapods. That’s what you keep failing at dealing with.

    “Evolution (the process) is a fact. The evidence for it has been provided.”

    Great, provide the real evidence, not speculation.

    Already done, you lying about it doesn’t change that fact.

    “You’re not asking others to believe anything because you’re too much of a coward to say, in any detail, what you believe happened.”

    I don’t push my faith on others like you. lol!

    Lol, you’re too afraid to have your beliefs scrutinised. I understand why. It’s because they won’t stand up to it … at all.

    Besides, you have the facts, right?

    I’ve certainly presented the facts that support my claims and you’ve so far singularly failed to show any of them to be false.

    “because you’ve failed to give a single coherent objection to anything”

    You failed to make your case using the SM.

    Except that I have. You lying about it doesn’t change that fact.

    Destroyed your case again.

    Where? Only in your head because you’ve done nothing of the sort on this thread.

    “I have the evidence that suggests life did indeed come from inorganic compounds (the Miller-Urey experiments”

    OMG!! HAHAHAHAHAHA, still using this failed experiment from the 50s!

    Failed? According to who? Because it’s certainly not according to the scientists who’ve studied the work. Do you even know what the experiment was? What it was designed to do? The aim was to test whether the Earth’s original conditions were enough to generate organic compounds from inorganic precursors. Guess what happened … go on … no? Well I’ll tell you then, it worked!

    And subsequent information has suggested that the conditions used by Miller & Urey were a little conservative and it would actually have been possible to produce a much wider range of the organic compounds. Experiments using these more realistic conditions have confirmed this.

    This proved it “DID”?

    Where did I say it was “proved” that was what happened? Oh, that’s right, I didn’t. I said it “suggested” that that was what happened. It’s evidence in favour of that theory. You’d know that if you understood how science works.

    I did also notice that you quoted what I actually said but then couldn’t stop yourself lying about it. I thought Christians were supposed to avoid lying? Does this mean you’re not a Christian?

    OK, using the SM method prove it.

    Prove what? You don’t even seem to know what you’re asking for. The Milley-Urey experiment (which followed the SM) has already proven that a certain set of conditions is favourable to forming organic compounds from inorganic precursors. Subsequent experiments have only confirmed the original tests. However, if you disagree, you’re welcome to perform the tests yourself and see what happens. Should be a piece of piss for someone who’s sat through as many biology lessons as you claim to have done.

  66. on 18 Oct 2013 at 5:40 pm 66.A40Y-HorX-Troll said …

    “Are you actually about to present a theory that those books form the evidence for?”

    No, I will present a link to a volume of books. You will wade, right?

    “I still call bullshit.”

    Naturally, you are use to drones who believe everything they are told. Critical thinkers are foreign to you.

    “I’ve certainly presented the facts that support my claims and you’ve so far singularly failed to show any of them to be false.”

    You have presented opinions. You know, the fish looks like it has characteristics of another species! lol! Not proof, opinion. Try again.

    “Because it’s certainly not according to the scientists who’ve studied the work.”

    OK, exactly what did it prove? Lets see what you can google up and present.

    “I didn’t. I said it “suggested” that that was what happened.”

    Suggested? Another unproven, unsubstantiated opinion that does live up to the SM. You whole case is a fraud. The facts suggest nothing, it is opinion of what you want it to say.

    “The Milley-Urey experiment (which followed the SM) has already proven that a certain set of conditions is favourable to forming organic compounds from inorganic precursors.”

    Hmmm, you seem to be acknowledging your other claims did not follow SM. Very good!!

    And this MU experiment confirms what? Sorry, this suggests what?

  67. on 19 Oct 2013 at 10:55 pm 67.Anonymous said …

    freddie:
    You do realize that you’re dealing with someone who cannot state the age of our planet Earth. Good luck having sciencey discussions with the idiot known as the hor.

    Try asking the hor how long humans have existed? Someone cue the crickets.

  68. on 20 Oct 2013 at 2:23 am 68.Angus and Alexis said …

    I advise everyone here to join the forums…

  69. on 20 Oct 2013 at 2:28 pm 69.Anonymous said …

    It’s a much more refined place. However, recent threads have been ridden with talk about ponies and imaginary friends called tulpae. Is nothing sacred?

  70. on 21 Oct 2013 at 11:51 am 70.freddies_dead said …

    1066.A40Y-HorX-Troll said …

    “Are you actually about to present a theory that those books form the evidence for?”

    No,

    Quelle surprise…

    I will present a link to a volume of books. You will wade, right?

    I’ve already said I’ll “wade” if it’s posited as evidence in support of a theory you believe in, but now you’ve said you’re only posting it as a pointless diversion. So of course the answer is no. No doubt you’ll now lie about my answer.

    “I still call bullshit.”

    Naturally, you are use to drones who believe everything they are told. Critical thinkers are foreign to you.

    No, it’s because your objections show a complete ignorance of subjects you claim to understand. You wouldn’t recognise a critical thought if it walked up and headbutted you.

    “I’ve certainly presented the facts that support my claims and you’ve so far singularly failed to show any of them to be false.”

    You have presented opinions.

    Nope, facts. You lying about them doesn’t magically change them.

    You know, the fish looks like it has characteristics of another species! lol! Not proof, opinion. Try again.

    Not opinion, fact. They have necks, shoulders and arms – just like tetrapods. You lying about it doesn’t change those facts.

    “Because it’s certainly not according to the scientists who’ve studied the work.”

    OK, exactly what did it prove? Lets see what you can google up and present.

    I see you’re now demonstrating your complete lack of ability in reading for comprehension along with your usual disdain for actually gaining knowledge.

    Not a surprise, knowledge is the death of theism. Once you realise that, everything your mythology attributes to your God, is explainable by natural means you have to be irrational to carry on believing. That’s why we see you desperately trying to cram your God into any tiny gap in knowledge.

    I’ve already said what it proved i.e. that, given certain conditions, organic compounds(in this case amino acids) can be formed from inorganic precursors.

    “I didn’t. I said it “suggested” that that was what happened.”

    Suggested? Another unproven, unsubstantiated opinion that does live up to the SM.

    Even your typos like to show you up and demonstrate that you still don’t get science. The experiments followed the scientific method. The results are only definitive in what they say about the original hypothesis i.e. it proved we can get organic compounds from inorganic precursors. It is also, however, evidence that supports the idea that life evolved from non-life. It certainly suggests that it is possible.

    ‘Unsubstantiated opinion’ is what we see when you posit the existence of God or the efficacy of prayer. It’s unsubstantiated because you have no evidence to back up the claim, but, when evidence is used to inform a statement, as I have been doing all along, it’s not ‘unsubstantiated’.

    You whole case is a fraud.

    This is just sour grapes because you’ve got no evidence that contradicts what I have claimed.

    The facts suggest nothing, it is opinion of what you want it to say.

    Lol, you still can’t cope with the facts being on my side and you having no facts to back up your own claims.

    “The Milley-Urey experiment (which followed the SM) has already proven that a certain set of conditions is favourable to forming organic compounds from inorganic precursors.”

    Hmmm, you seem to be acknowledging your other claims did not follow SM. Very good!!

    You sir, are a shitty liar. Nowhere in that statement do I acknowledge anything of the sort. I simply underline that the Miller-Urey experiments were carried out using the scientific method. You have no response so choose to lie instead. Your shitty lies makes you a shitty Christian. It’s no wonder you have to make up so many sock-puppets, no decent Christian wants to be associated with your lies.

    And this MU experiment confirms what?

    Once again with the ignorance. As I’ve already noted, you would do well to take a few remedial classes in reading for comprehension. The experiment proved we can get organic compounds from inorganic precursors in conditions similar to that of ancient earth. Do you have any evidence to contradict that? Maybe you know what the conditions were like? Maybe you know how long ago that was? 6,000 years? 10,000 years? When was life created A? What about humans? Were they the first as the Christian myth says? Was it just Adam and Eve? Were they really tricked by a talking snake? Where exactly was the Garden of Eden? Do you know where Noah’s Ark is? Have you ever met a talking donkey? Why were talking animals commonplace in the Bible when we don’t see them outside of cartoons?

    Sorry, this suggests what?

    It is evidence in favour of the idea that life came from non-life.

    Not that this should be controversial to you. As I’ve already pointed out, the Christian creation myth explicitly states that life came from non-life. Although, unlike science, the Bible barely asserts this rather than giving any evidence for the claim.

  71. on 21 Oct 2013 at 12:06 pm 71.Angus and Alexis said …

    “1071.Anonymous said …
    It’s a much more refined place. However, recent threads have been ridden with talk about ponies and imaginary friends called tulpae. Is nothing sacred?”

    Heheh obviously that was me.

    You don’t happen to be Screwtape are you?

  72. on 21 Oct 2013 at 12:56 pm 72.freddies_dead said …

    1067.Anonymous said …

    freddie:
    You do realize that you’re dealing with someone who cannot state the age of our planet Earth.

    I do.

    Good luck having sciencey discussions with the idiot known as the hor.

    TBF A is merely a conduit at this point. I’m continuing to show his creationist drivel to be bullshit more for anyone reading along. I hope that they recognise that his claims are completely evidence free and that his objections are similarly unsupported.

    Try asking the hor how long humans have existed? Someone cue the crickets.

    I did give it a go – along with a few other questions that should be fairly simple to answer. However, I suspect he’ll do his usual and dodge answering because he knows he can’t actually back up the answers his mythology give him with any evidence.

  73. on 21 Oct 2013 at 6:06 pm 73.A40Y-HorX-Troll said …

    “I hope that they recognise that his claims are completely evidence free”

    Hmmmm? So what claim would that be? I’ll go ahead and add the evidence so we can be up to date.

    Now your turn.

    1. Provide proof like sprang from the primordial oooze. Of course, utilize the SM.

    2. Provide evidence and support with the SM that macroevolution has taken place and continues to take place. We will need evidence of each step bring us to the new species.

    I wanted to restate the questions so our audience can see the questions you claim to have answered using the SM. However, in reality you have only offered opinion and assumptions.

  74. on 21 Oct 2013 at 6:15 pm 74.A40Y-HorX-Troll said …

    ” So of course the answer is no. No doubt you’ll now lie about my answer.”

    NO, you refuse to wade through the evidence. Why would I need to lie? I don’t participate in lies.

    “Not opinion, fact. They have necks, shoulders and arms – just like tetrapods. You lying about it doesn’t change those facts.

    So do tertrapods, alligators and humans. Tetrapods already existed. Dismissed……

    “It is also, however, evidence that supports the idea that life evolved from non-life. It certainly suggests that it is possible.”

    Actually it suggests that it is impossible. Wrong amino acids, left and right aminos which will not contribute to life, Miller removed the aminos so they would not be destroyed. Even if the correct aminos were created and survived, No information for the aminos to follow to become a protein. A very dubious task. Dismissed…..

    “The experiment proved we can get organic compounds from inorganic precursors in conditions similar to that of ancient earth.”

    We don’t know the conditions of ancient earth. Miller left out oxygen, hmmm wonder why? See above for the rest of the dismissal. Dismissed!

    “Have you ever met a talking donkey?”

    I don’t know. Couldn’t one evolve if life can evolve from soup? Any of you guys on here donkeys?

    “I simply underline that the Miller-Urey experiments were carried out using the scientific method.”

    Yes you did. And I am proud of you. The experiment showed R & L aminos which cannot form proteins can be created when intelligence chooses to control an environment in a particular manner. Was this what you were looking to show?

    You fired off many questions in frustration that your worldview is collapsing. I thought atheists only believed what can be proven? are you really and truly a being of faith?

  75. on 21 Oct 2013 at 6:16 pm 75.A40Y-HorX-Troll said …

    “Heheh obviously that was me.”

    Duh! Who else runs around with a Tulip on the blog. LOL!!!

  76. on 22 Oct 2013 at 2:07 am 76.Anonymous said …

    Maybe the hor should read “Your Inner Fish” by Shubin. Might help him grab a clue. Just picked it up at the local library….looks interesting.

    The hor supports “Systematic Theology”, apparently. Almost blew my wine out my nose from laughing at that. Sorry, hor. Whatever keeps you sober is OK by me. lol!!

  77. on 22 Oct 2013 at 7:12 am 77.Angus and Alexis said …

    1077.A40Y-HorX-Troll said …
    “Duh! Who else runs around with a Tulip on the blog. LOL!!!”

    Duh! Who else is an ignorant troll on the blog?
    LOOL!!!one.

  78. on 22 Oct 2013 at 10:53 am 78.freddies_dead said …

    1073.A40Y-HorX-Troll said …

    “I hope that they recognise that his claims are completely evidence free”

    Hmmmm? So what claim would that be?

    That God exists.
    Why He won’t save DPK’s dog from arse-warts.
    That swimming the Pacific is impossible.
    That DNA can only be created by an intelligent designer.
    How evolution is even relevant to a discussion of God’s existence and the efficacy of intercessory prayer.
    That you don’t use sock-puppets.
    That macroevolution doesn’t – and can’t – happen.
    That Tiktaalik isn’t a transitional form.
    That Tiktaalik wasn’t found using the SM.
    That you understand logic, evidence and the SM.
    Directed Panspermia.
    That amino acids are killed by just about everything so they couldn’t possibly survive without God.
    That the Miller Urey experiment failed.
    That life cannot come from non-life – especially in the light of not only scientific evidence to the contrary, but also the testimony in the Bible.

    I’ll go ahead and add the evidence so we can be up to date.

    Lol, yeah right. You’ve had 3+ months to do it but haven’t provided a single piece of evidence so far. I won’t be holding my breath for you to start now trollboy.

    Now your turn.

    Odd, it’s like it’s always my turn.

    1. Provide proof like sprang from the primordial oooze. Of course, utilize the SM.

    I’ve already told you I don’t have definitive proof (cue A only quoting this one sentence). However, the experimentation done so far demonstrates that, given primordial conditions, organic compounds can come from inorganic precursors without any outside interference. This suggests that life did spring from the “primordial ooze”. You’re welcome to disagree and present any evidence (gathered using the SM of course) that shows this is impossible (cue A ignoring this request just like he’s ignored all the others).

    2. Provide evidence and support with the SM that macroevolution has taken place and continues to take place. We will need evidence of each step bring us to the new species.

    I’ve already given evidence that macroevolution has taken place. The rest of your demand is an attempt to move the goalposts, however, evolution is a continual process and scientists have seen new species arise – it was in the evidence you refused to “wade through”.

    I wanted to restate the questions so our audience can see the questions you claim to have answered using the SM.

    Anyone following along, who can read for comprehension, will have seen those questions answered exactly as you demanded. It’s only you that doesn’t seem to have the necessary reading comprehension levels to understand the answers and how they fulfill your requests. Unless you’re only pretending you don’t understand? Which would fit with your general levels of dishonesty on this site.

    However, in reality you have only offered opinion and assumptions.

    Aaaaand back to you lying about facts as if you think this will stop them being facts.

  79. on 22 Oct 2013 at 12:50 pm 79.freddies_dead said …

    1074.A40Y-HorX-Troll said …

    ” So of course the answer is no. No doubt you’ll now lie about my answer.”

    NO, you refuse to wade through the evidence.

    Exactly as predicted. I explained I wasn’t going to read a large volume of books that you have admitted is nothing more than a pointless diversion and you lie about my answer. Priceless.

    Why would I need to lie?

    I really don’t know why you feel the need to lie so much, but you do and that’s all that matters.

    I don’t participate in lies.

    Lying about lying is still lying A.

    “Not opinion, fact. They have necks, shoulders and arms – just like tetrapods. You lying about it doesn’t change those facts.

    So do tertrapods, alligators and humans. Tetrapods already existed. Dismissed……

    Another biology fail from A. Humans and alligators are tetrapods. And whether tetrapods actually existed before Tiktaalik is irrelevant to Tiktaalik having tetrapod characteristics. I mentioned “convergent evolution” when this baseless objection was raised before, you should have looked it up.

    Another thing to note here is A’s contradictory approach to scientific discovery. Apparently Tiktaalik, found by scientists using the SM, doesn’t count – because it supports evolutionary theory, but, the discovery (by scientists again don’t forget) of possible tetrapod tracks in rock formations that are dated earlier than those Tiktaalik was found in, are beyond reproach simply because A believes (incorrectly of course) that they support his claim that Tiktaalik isn’t a transitional form. The tracks do nothing to remove the tetrapod characteristics so clearly shown by the Tiktaalik fossils.

    “It is also, however, evidence that supports the idea that life evolved from non-life. It certainly suggests that it is possible.”

    Actually it suggests that it is impossible.

    Lol, it doesn’t.

    Wrong amino acids, left and right aminos which will not contribute to life,

    Aaahhh, the argument from chirality. It is trivially true, that in standard lab experiments, you tend to get racemic mixtures (equal amounts of left and right-handed chiral molecules), but other tests, designed to mimic nature more closely, show that naturally you get left-handed amino acids. This tendency towards homochirality isn’t yet fully understood (Hey A! Somewhere small to cram your God!), but scientists believe there are 3 steps which cause this phenomenon – mirror-symmetry breaking, chiral amplification and chiral transmission.

    Miller removed the aminos so they would not be destroyed.

    Citation needed. Processing of the mixture to isolate the amino acids would eventually destroy them. However, there were several sealed vials of the mixture kept and some have been tested with more modern technology. The modern tests just back up the original hypothesis – that organic compounds come from inorganic precursors.

    Even if the correct aminos were created and survived, No information for the aminos to follow to become a protein.

    What is this even supposed to mean? Amino acids bond together to form peptides which then form proteins – it’s basic chemistry and the reactions happen due to the properties of the substances. What “information” do you think they have to follow?

    A very dubious task.

    It’s only dubious because you’ve a) ignored most of the science and b) added in undefined extras (like your utterly unsupported claim of a lack of information) to deliberately make it sound unlikely.

    Dismissed…..

    You have been.

    “The experiment proved we can get organic compounds from inorganic precursors in conditions similar to that of ancient earth.”

    We don’t know the conditions of ancient earth.

    Actually we have a very good idea – certainly a better idea than Miller did – and using the more up to date knowledge actually leads to more organic compounds generated i.e. it’s even more likely that life came from non-life.

    Miller left out oxygen, hmmm wonder why?

    Are you sure? You see the experiment used water. And water is made up of Hydrogen and … wait for it … OXYGEN! Chemistry fail from A.

    See above for the rest of the dismissal. Dismissed!

    Your dismissal has definitely been dismissed.

    “Have you ever met a talking donkey?”

    I don’t know.

    You don’t know? Surely you’d remember meeting a talking donkey?

    Couldn’t one evolve if life can evolve from soup?

    I suppose it could if speech based communication became an adaptive trait for them, but so far the existence of talking donkeys is only theoretical. However, the Bible already thinks they exist, why is that? And where’s the evidence?

    Any of you guys on here donkeys?

    A&A is a brony but I don’t think that counts.

    “I simply underline that the Miller-Urey experiments were carried out using the scientific method.”

    Yes you did. And I am proud of you. The experiment showed R & L aminos which cannot form proteins

    Untrue Glycine is achiral and still forms proteins.

    can be created when intelligence chooses to control an environment in a particular manner.

    You have no answer to the results so you attack the experiment instead. This is brilliant. You’ve tried saying that the experiment failed and actually supported your claims i.e. you can’t get life from non-life, but now you’re saying the failed experiment is really a product of intelligent design i.e. that you can’t intelligently design life from non-life. Well done A.

    Was this what you were looking to show?

    That you don’t care about the SM so any mention of it by you is dishonest? Not really but I’ll take it all the same. You whine on about me having to use the SM, but as soon as you don’t like the results you’re only too happy to call it into question. In this case undermining your own position into the bargain.

    You fired off many questions in frustration that your worldview is collapsing.

    Nope, I asked questions on the off chance that you’d attempt an answer. I note that you dodged the majority of them, why is that?

    I thought atheists only believed what can be proven?

    Athiests only really have one thing in common – no belief in the existence of Gods. How they form their beliefs from there is up to the individual.

    I prefer to have facts that back up the things I believe and I certainly have that with evolution. Where’s your evidence to support the existence of God.

    are you really and truly a being of faith?

    As I’ve demonstrated time and time again, no.

  80. on 22 Oct 2013 at 1:38 pm 80.Angus and Alexis said …

    Freddy said.
    “A&A is a brony but I don’t think that counts.”

    Well…There is a few episodes with talking donkeys.

    *shrugs*

  81. on 22 Oct 2013 at 4:55 pm 81..A40Y-HorX-Troll said …

    ‘but so far the existence of talking donkeys is only theoretical.’

    Lol!! So it is as legitimate as Life from the soup and macroecolutuon. Lol!! And we gave Agnus or Alex or whoever this dude is typing. He can probably talk too. The gods of Time & Chance have spoken!

    All I had time today for boys and donkeys. Freddie boy, check into free O2 which Miller left out, wonder why? GEEZ… . even a 3 yr old knows water was available! Lol!!!!!!!!!!! A duh moment for Frederick.

    As you admitted, you cannot prove your theory with facts Well done!

  82. on 22 Oct 2013 at 5:42 pm 82.freddies_dead said …

    1081..A40Y-HorX-Troll said …

    ‘but so far the existence of talking donkeys is only theoretical.’

    Lol!! So it is as legitimate as Life from the soup and macroecolutuon. Lol!!

    No, now you’re falsely equivocating the wholly theoretical (talking donkeys) with something that has actual evidence in it’s favour (life emerging from the primordial soup) and something that has been proved to happen (macroevolution). No wonder you fail so hard at science.

    And we gave Agnus or Alex or whoever this dude is typing. He can probably talk too. The gods of Time & Chance have spoken!

    This is incoherent drivel. About par for the course from you.

    All I had time today for boys and donkeys. Freddie boy, check into free O2 which Miller left out, wonder why?

    Do you have any evidence at all to suggest that free oxygen existed in sufficient quantities to cause Miller-Urey type experiments to fail?

    There is a creationist book by a Jonathan Wells called “Icons Of Evolution” that makes this very same claim (among other lies). It has to distort the evidence of course. Nick Matzke wrote a long article called “Icons Of Obfuscation” which systematically refutes all the claims made by Wells and shows him to be a thoroughly dishonest person (dishonesty seems very common among creationists in my experience). You can read Matzke’s essay over on TalkOrigins if you’re interested (not you A, we know you can’t be bothered to “wade through” evidence).

    Suffice it to say that the evidence shows that free oxygen was no more than a trace element on prebiotic earth, meaning it didn’t interfere with the formation of organic compounds from inorganic precursors. In other words Miller and Urey were right to leave free oygen out of the equation.

    GEEZ… . even a 3 yr old knows water was available! Lol!!!!!!!!!!! A duh moment for Frederick.

    And yet it was I pointing out that you’d ignored the oxygen in water – that every 3 year old knows is available right A?. A ‘duh’ moment indeed but claiming the moment was mine is just you lying again. Once more we find you lying and yet you claim that you’re not a liar. The evidence contradicts your claims … again.

    As you admitted, you cannot prove your theory with facts Well done!

    And here we are with you wilfully misunderstanding scientific theories yet again. You claim to have sat through countless biology lessons and yet you never learned that scientific theories aren’t proven. They’re supported (or falsified) by the evidence. The only scientific theory I’ve really talked about is the ToE, which is the best supported theory in all of science. It’s the closest thing to proven a theory can be and the main process of evolution has been proven for a long time now.

    In fact the only thing I recall admitting hasn’t been definitively proven by facts is how homochirality has arisen in nature … and even then I pointed out that scientists already have some ideas as to how it happened. Of course it’s not a theory, it’s one tiny part of abiogenesis.

    Your attempt to make that tiny little gap bigger – so your God doesn’t look so squashed in there – has failed A. Not that you could even present an evidence based argument that it was your God in that gap in the first place. In fact I’m happy to predict that, when the scientists work it out, we’ll see it was nature all along – no God necessary.

  83. on 22 Oct 2013 at 8:00 pm 83.A40Y-HorX-Troll said …

    “now you’re falsely equivocating the wholly theoretical (talking donkeys) with something that has actual evidence in it’s favour (sic)”

    No, I equivocated two theories that have zero proof but many assumptions. When you find a jaw bone and a portion of skull and draw an entire creature from the findings, that is art not science.

    “Nick Matzke wrote a long article called “Icons Of Obfuscation”

    I had to google Nick. So why is grad student Nick much more informed than Wells? Please share what was so intriguing……Would you be claiming Wells didn’t listen in all his biology classes at UC Berkley? lol!!!!!!!! Just so you can be correct for once, Wells is an ID proponent not a creationist. Yes, I’m sure he gets smeared regularly. He dares to take on the state dogma.

    “Suffice it to say that the evidence shows that free oxygen was no more than a trace element on prebiotic earth”

    Suffice to say you claiming it does not make it true. Prove it. Evidence actually shows the atmosphere had just over 20% O2.
    Just for grins, if the atmosphere had zero O2, how were the aminos protected from UV?

    “And yet it was I pointing out that you’d ignored the oxygen in water”

    LOL!!!! Yes, I ignored the oxygen in water…….because it is NOT free oxygen. Wow, do you flip burgers for a living?

    “The only scientific theory I’ve really talked about is the ToE, which is the best supported theory in all of science.”

    LOL!!!! Too much Richard Dawkins. Yes, it is so well supported 50% of Americans don’t believe it. They only thing propping up Macro is Micro and I have had many atheist here and elsewhere who admit this to be the case. Prove it using the SM and I will be the first to come back to your…..um….er……ar……truth.
    

  84. on 22 Oct 2013 at 10:43 pm 84.Anonymous said …

    1083.A40Y-HorX-Troll said …

    “now you’re falsely equivocating the wholly theoretical (talking donkeys) with something that has actual evidence in it’s favour (sic)

    You can stick your (sic) up your arse A. I’m English and that’s how we spell favour.

    No, I equivocated two theories that have zero proof but many assumptions.

    Lol, utter bullshit. I’ve already presented the evidence for both life from non-life and evolution and you’ve categorically failed to refute it.

    When you find a jaw bone and a portion of skull and draw an entire creature from the findings, that is art not science.

    Because you have evidence that this is what scientists have done? Present this evidence then.

    “Nick Matzke wrote a long article called “Icons Of Obfuscation”

    I had to google Nick.

    So now you resort to something you’ve previously attempted to mock me for. Oh how the mighty have fallen…

    So why is grad student Nick much more informed than Wells?

    Lol, are you saying that because Matzke hasn’t yet completed his Ph.D he’s not able to show where Wells was dishonest? Why not?

    I guess I was correct about you failing to go and read Matzke’s article on TalkOrigins though. If you had you’ll have seen how he actually shows that Wells has distorted the evidence.

    Please share what was so intriguing……Would you be claiming Wells didn’t listen in all his biology classes at UC Berkley? lol!!!!!!!!

    No, I’m just saying the article shows where he distorted the evidence and mischaracterised what other scientists have said about various areas of evolution.

    Just so you can be correct for once, Wells is an ID proponent not a creationist.

    Lol, he’s a cdesign proponentist. It’s a distinction without a difference.

    Yes, I’m sure he gets smeared regularly. He dares to take on the state dogma.

    Lol, there’s no smear. Just a comprehensive demonstration of how Wells distorts both the evidence and what mainline scientists actually say.

    “Suffice it to say that the evidence shows that free oxygen was no more than a trace element on prebiotic earth”

    Suffice to say you claiming it does not make it true.

    It’s not my claim, it’s what the evidence shows. It’s the scientific consensus that O2 levels only really started to rise around 2.5 billion years ago.

    Prove it.

    en (dot) wikipedia (dot) org (/) wiki (/) Geological_history_of_oxygen

    Evidence actually shows the atmosphere had just over 20% O2.

    Lol, prove it.

    Just for grins, if the atmosphere had zero O2, how were the aminos protected from UV?

    You’ve forgotten the water again. By your own logic that must mean you don’t have the knowledge of the average 3 year old.

    “And yet it was I pointing out that you’d ignored the oxygen in water”

    LOL!!!! Yes, I ignored the oxygen in water…….because it is NOT free oxygen. Wow, do you flip burgers for a living?

    Lol, you make the claim that there’s no oxygen. I point out that there was and you have to move the goalposts to try and cover up your mistake. No good trying to blame me for your stupidity.

    “The only scientific theory I’ve really talked about is the ToE, which is the best supported theory in all of science.”

    LOL!!!! Too much Richard Dawkins. Yes, it is so well supported 50% of Americans don’t believe it.

    Lol, it’s not a popularity contest. It doesn’t matter how many Americans don’t accept it – especially when they do so mostly for irrational religious reasons. The evidence still supports the theory.

    They only thing propping up Macro is Micro and I have had many atheist here and elsewhere who admit this to be the case.

    I’ve presented the evidence for macroevolution which stands on its own. Your refusal to “wade through” it doesn’t change that fact.

    Prove it using the SM and I will be the first to come back to your…..um….er……ar……truth.

    Already done. You lying about it won’t change that fact either.

  85. on 23 Oct 2013 at 1:54 am 85..A40Y-HorX-Troll said …

    Anonynouse you are busted lol!!!!!!

    I always knew you and Frederick were socks. Those who yell the loudest are the biggest offenders. Hilarious!!!!

    Can you and Frederick or Alexis and Agnus provide evidence for macro using SM? Nope, will never happen.

    “You’ve forgotten the water again”

    OH! LOL!! so now this happened more than 3′ below water? Ok, his did the aminos survive hydrolysis, contaminates and become proteins and then find the coded information to know how to assemble themselves? Lol!!! Never mind, save you from hours of googling.

  86. on 23 Oct 2013 at 7:16 am 86.Angus and Alexis said …

    A said.
    “Can you and Frederick or Alexis and Agnus provide evidence for macro using SM? Nope, will never happen.”

    Freddie seems capable, i could probably too.
    But it has already been done, so there is no point.

  87. on 23 Oct 2013 at 9:52 am 87.freddies_dead said …

    1085..A40Y-HorX-Troll said …

    Anonynouse you are busted lol!!!!!!

    I always knew you and Frederick were socks. Those who yell the loudest are the biggest offenders. Hilarious!!!!

    The only person on here caught committing sock-puppetry is you A. Projecting your dishonest behaviour onto others because you’ve lost an argument is pure desperation on your part.

    Can you and Frederick or Alexis and Agnus provide evidence for macro using SM? Nope, will never happen.

    Already done A. You lying about it won’t change that fact.

    “You’ve forgotten the water again”

    OH! LOL!! so now this happened more than 3? below water?

    Not clean water, but it’s not called the primordial soup for nothing. Most of this took place in prebiotic pools which would have given some shelter from UV. Not to mention the vast quantities of volcanic gases which would have formed low dense clouds giving even more protection.

    Ok, his did the aminos survive hydrolysis, contaminates and become proteins and then find the coded information to know how to assemble themselves?

    What contaminants are you claiming there were? And where’s your evidence that the prebiotic pools were pure enough – with a high enough H2O content – to retard the production of amino acids? Where’s your evidence for this magic “coded information” that you refuse to define? What evidence do you have to suggest chemical reactions require guidance from an “intelligent designer”? Cause, you know, we know the amino acids survived, we know a great deal about prebiotic conditions and everything we know suggests they were fine for the generation of organic compounds from inorganic precursors. Add to that the fact that there’s still fuck all evidence to suggest a God even exists, let alone sheltered the little aminos through their early moments and you’re left with no argument (nothing new there of course).

    Lol!!! Never mind, save you from hours of googling.

    You give yourself way too much credit A. When it comes to your content free objections it’s no more than a few minutes effort to show that they’re utterly wrong.

  88. on 23 Oct 2013 at 5:33 pm 88.A40Y-HorX-Troll.Sock Buster said …

    “The only person on here caught committing sock-puppetry is you A.

    Oh and posting as anonymous to follow up Frederick is not dishonest? Lol!!!! Please, you fraud.

    BUSTED!!!!!!!

    ‘And where’s your evidence that the prebiotic pools were pure enough – with a high enough H2O content – to retard the production of amino acids? Where’s your evidence for this magic “coded?

    I dunno anonyfraud, where is the evidence? Where is evidence for any of your claims? Where is evidence aminos formed, these aminos became proteins, they found DNA/RNA and empty cells laying in the soup and took up residence? Were oh where anonyfraud?

  89. on 24 Oct 2013 at 11:49 am 89.Anonymous said …

    Test from freddies_dead to see what happens if you post without a name

  90. on 24 Oct 2013 at 12:34 pm 90.freddies_dead said …

    1088.A40Y-HorX-Troll.Sock Buster said …

    “The only person on here caught committing sock-puppetry is you A.

    Oh and posting as anonymous to follow up Frederick is not dishonest? Lol!!!! Please, you fraud.

    BUSTED!!!!!!!

    Lol. It would be if it were true. That second post (1084) was done from home on a computer that I don’t usually use to visit here, so it didn’t have my username stored in the name field. I hadn’t even noticed it had come up as Anonymous, hence my pointing out that only you had been definitively proven to post under more than one name – both A and 40YA (I believe the other accusations of sock-puppeting are based on style and content rather than more definitive evidence). I’ve tested my hypothesis (see post 1089) and it does indeed use the name ‘Anonymous’ if you don’t fill in the name field (a bit of an annoyance when there are some that use that moniker as their username). I have also noticed that the same thing happened on the 10th October. In post 1028 (a response to you that you responded to in post 1037 but failed to notice my usual username wasn’t attached) and post 1029 (one to messy). Once again I was posting from home on that day. However, I already recognise that you won’t accept my explanation, that’s your problem not mine.

    ‘And where’s your evidence that the prebiotic pools were pure enough – with a high enough H2O content – to retard the production of amino acids? Where’s your evidence for this magic “coded?

    I dunno anonyfraud, where is the evidence?

    How would I know where your evidence is? It’s your claim therefore it’s your job to provide it.

    Where is evidence for any of your claims?

    I’ve either presented the evidence that backs up my claims on this very thread or linked to where the evidence could be found. Where’s your evidence? Apart from a threat to post a link number of books as a deliberate diversion you’ve yet to present a single shred of evidence for any of the claims you’ve made so far.

    Where is evidence aminos formed, these aminos became proteins,

    We know amino acids must have formed and joined together to create proteins or we wouldn’t be here discussing it, but most of the evidence for them is gathered from experiments which recreate the early condition on earth (which we know a lot about courtesy of geology etc…). There is also some molecular fossil evidence from the earliest organisms which show the proteins, RNA and DNA.

    they found DNA/RNA and empty cells laying in the soup and took up residence? Were oh where anonyfraud?

    What is this little fairy tale you’ve made up supposed to represent? And why would we expect there to be any evidence for it? Fairy tales aren’t real hence they don’t have evidence for them, just like there’s no evidence for your fairy tale God.

  91. on 24 Oct 2013 at 2:54 pm 91.DPK said …

    “and it does indeed use the name ‘Anonymous’ if you don’t fill in the name field”
    Yes, and many of us have had that experience of posting from a different computer and having “Anonymous” show up in the name field by default. Stan is fully aware of that, but being the lying, despicable sack of dog feces he is, he will attempt to make something of it in order to distract attention from the intellectual thrashing he has been enduring of late.
    What the software does NOT do however, is default to a name like 40 year atheist, Biff, Boz, Horattio, Ben, or any of the other monikers that A/40 has been deliberately caught responding under, on multiple occasions. No surprise… he has shown himself time and time again to be completely deceitful and without any intellectual scruples whatsoever. He as, as we say in the states, a dickhead… LOL!

  92. on 24 Oct 2013 at 5:41 pm 92.A40Y-HorX-Troll.Sock Buster said …

    Sure Freddie. No explanation accepted by me and none of your lame excuses will be accepted. No that I mind being linked to 40YA.

    Also, I also contend puppeting ia based on style and content rather than more definitive evidence. Og course, now I have that! DPK doesn’t help your case.

    BUSTED!

    “we know amino acids must have formed and joined together to create proteins or we wouldn’t be here discussing it,”

    Uh, huh, yeah, and this proves the soup did this how? How does soup know how arrange aminos, build chains to form proteins an thus an entire cell? Hmmm? How anonyfraud?

  93. on 25 Oct 2013 at 7:26 am 93.Anonymous said …

    I’m totally not a sock puppet…

  94. on 25 Oct 2013 at 7:28 am 94.Angus and Alexis said …

    Your are right “Anonymous”, you are not a sock puppet at all.

    I totally did not write “1093”.

    A, you are an idiot.

  95. on 25 Oct 2013 at 1:05 pm 95.freddies_dead said …

    1092.A40Y-HorX-Troll.Sock Buster said …

    Sure Freddie. No explanation accepted by me and none of your lame excuses will be accepted. No that I mind being linked to 40YA.

    As I said, not my problem. It was an explanation not an excuse. I have done nothing that warrants excusing. As for you, you weren’t just linked to 40YA, you were caught posting as both 40YA and yourself.

    Also, I also contend puppeting ia based on style and content rather than more definitive evidence. Og course, now I have that! DPK doesn’t help your case.

    BUSTED!

    I’m unsurprised. Your innate dishonesty causes you to project that dishonesty onto others. You simply don’t get that there are honest people out there – mostly because you aren’t one of them. Once again, not my problem.

    “we know amino acids must have formed and joined together to create proteins or we wouldn’t be here discussing it,”

    Uh, huh, yeah, and this proves the soup did this how?

    As I said, scientists know a lot about how aminos bond to form peptides (which then form proteins) in conditions similar to those on the early earth thanks to pretty extensive experimentation. If those processes didn’t happen life would never have arisen on this planet. Our very existence proves that it happened.

    How does soup know how arrange aminos, build chains to form proteins an thus an entire cell? Hmmm? How anonyfraud?

    This is your problem, not mine. You’re the one suggesting the system must ‘know’ what to do.

    Science knows the soup doesn’t know anything and it knows that it doesn’t need to. Amino acids form peptides based on chemical reactions. Peptides join to form polypeptides due to chemical reactions. Polypetides are generally referred to as proteins. Some proteins are enzymes which help catalyse chemical reactions even easier. These molecules can aggregate together to form protobionts – again it’s just chemical reactions to build the bonds. If you get an RNA or DNA molecule (which will be made up of nucleotides) trapped at the same time you have a self replicating compound which can be selected for and you’re on your way to a prokaryotic cell.

    Now we all know science doesn’t claim to be absolutely certain on this, but the evidence currently supports the hypothesis that this is how it happened.

    Now, from the discussions it seems pretty clear you espouse ‘intelligent design’ (which of course we know is just creationism gussied up with a new name). Although so far you’ve seemed far too cowardly to admit it outright because you’d then have to present some evidence of your own – something you haven’t managed in 3+ months.

    Well we’ve gone through evolution and abiogenesis as far as science knows it and here’s the gap that you were waiting for. The lack of ‘proof’ you think is a ‘gotcha’ moment. The teeny tiny gap that you seem to think you can cram your God into. Well here’s your chance to give us your theory, present your evidence. Go on A, lets hear you prove the existence of your God and demonstrate how He designed the codes which told the soup how to form amino acids. The codes that told the aminos how to form peptides. The codes that told peptides to form proteins etc… etc… Then you can explain why He did it all so it looks exactly like evolution brought about modern biodiversity. Then you can explain why the Bible makes no mention of any of this. Why the Bible says God made man from dirt and all the animals individually.

  96. on 25 Oct 2013 at 4:13 pm 96.DPK said …

    ” lets hear you prove the existence of your God and demonstrate how He designed the codes which told the soup how to form amino acids….”

    While he is at it, let’s hear him explain how this intelligent designer came to be without a designer itself? He claim that it is simply not possible for even a self replicating molecule to occur without the intervention of an intelligence to design it, yet has no problem with a being of infinite intelligence and so powerful as to be able to create the entire universe and everything in it out of just his will just existing.
    This should be good.
    How about it, Stan? We don’t even need you to employ the scientific method or to “prove” anything… just tell us what you think happened, how and why? Did your god actually create humans in their present form? Did all the species that ever existed just pop into existence one day out of thin air? Or did your god actually just plant a seed somehow and set evolution into motion? We already know what you DON’T believe, how about you enlighten us with what you DO believe?
    We know you won’t because you are just a coward and a liar.

  97. on 25 Oct 2013 at 8:01 pm 97.A40Y-HorX-Troll.Sock Buster said …

    “Well we’ve gone through evolution and abiogenesis as far as science knows it”

    Which is what? Where did DNA come from? How did aminos survive and the proteins? How did the first cell from? Where did those chemicals cone from? Why is DNA so complex and dense in its coding when there was no designer? WHY do biology textbooks state “Creation looks designed but we must remember it was not”.

    Evolution? Using the SM, provide proof of one species becoming another.

    I do thank you for giving a very amateurish view of biology but that was never the question. You sound like a politician avoiding the questions. Your problem not mine.

    Thanks AnonyFraud.

  98. on 25 Oct 2013 at 8:03 pm 98.A40Y-HorX-Troll.Sock Buster said …

    “I’m totally not a sock puppet…”

    Nice try AnonyFraud. Lol!!!

  99. on 25 Oct 2013 at 8:06 pm 99.Anonymous said …

    From the hor:
    “Evolution? Using the SM, provide proof of one species becoming another.”
    Physiology? Comparative anatomy? DNA? Genetic markers? Fossils? Do you need more?

  100. on 25 Oct 2013 at 8:21 pm 100.DPK said …

    1098.DPK said …
    “let’s hear him explain how this intelligent designer came to be without a designer itself? He claim that it is simply not possible for even a self replicating molecule to occur without the intervention of an intelligence to design it, yet has no problem with a being of infinite intelligence and so powerful as to be able to create the entire universe and everything in it out of just his will just existing.”

    1099.A40Y-HorX-Troll.Sock Buster said …
    “blah blah blah… well you can’t explain….”
    and then added:
    ” You sound like a politician avoiding the questions.”

    The irony is almost too much to comprehend…..
    LOL.

    “We already know what you DON’T believe, how about you enlighten us with what you DO believe?
    We know you won’t because you are just a coward and a liar.”

    My predictions here so far have a 100% accuracy.

  101. on 25 Oct 2013 at 9:44 pm 101.A40Y-HorX-Troll.Sock Buster said …

    “Physiology? Comparative anatomy? DNA? Genetic markers? Fossils? Do you need more?”

    Well…….yes, I need more than a Laverne and Shirley routine, I need evidence using the SM Anony Fraud. I ask how DNA was first created and his answer is DNA….lol!!!!

    Lol!!!!!! So the consensus is we are here therefore Cambells chicken noodle soup MUST of created the first cell, the first DNA code?

    Lol!!!! Sorry…….evolutiondiddit won’t get it here fellas. I am a man of science.

  102. on 25 Oct 2013 at 11:23 pm 102.Anonymous said …

    An example of obfuscation from the hor:
    hor asks: “Evolution? Using the SM, provide proof of one species becoming another.

    Anon: “Physiology? Comparative anatomy? DNA? Genetic markers? Fossils? Do you need more?”

    the hor, replying and forgetting what he initially asked for: “I ask how DNA was first created and his answer is DNA”

    I thought that you were on about EVOLUTION, no? Isn’t that what the first part of YOUR quote above was about? You know, the part you LEFT OUT in your reply. Oh yeah, everything in your worldview MUST distills down to ABIOGENESIS. That’s where you’ve tucked in your little god. Sorry for rocking the boat (or is it ark? lol!!)

  103. on 26 Oct 2013 at 2:53 am 103.the messenger said …

    1107.Angus and Alexis, many of the biblical laws command people to love one another.

    Tell me, do you deny that Hitler broke the Christian/Jewish laws that clearly prohibit murder?

    Furthermore, do you deny that Hitler broke the Christian/Jewish law the clearly states we must love our neighbors as our selves?

    Answer yes or not to the questions above. Do not waste my time with excuses. I’m getting tired of you petty statements.

  104. on 26 Oct 2013 at 3:15 am 104.Anonymous said …

    hor: “I am a man of science.”

    And I got a 12″ dick. lol!!! Saying so does not make it so.

    Here your chance for another EPIC FAILURE, “man of science”. What is the age of the Earth? How long have humans existed on the planet Earth? LOL!!! Epic Fail, Epic Idiot.

  105. on 26 Oct 2013 at 2:58 pm 105.Angus and Alexis said …

    1105.the messenger said …
    “1107.Angus and Alexis, many of the biblical laws command people to love one another.”

    Ironically it also includes slavery, mass genocide, murder and discrimination.

    “Tell me, do you deny that Hitler broke the Christian/Jewish laws that clearly prohibit murder?”

    He broke the quite a few of the ten commandments, yes.
    Irrelevant as he was a christian however.
    Do you happen to kill those who work on the Sabbath?

    “Furthermore, do you deny that Hitler broke the Christian/Jewish law the clearly states we must love our neighbors as our selves?”

    Humorously that law dictates that someone who hates themselves could murder without quarrel.

    “Answer yes or not to the questions above. Do not waste my time with excuses. I’m getting tired of you petty statements.”

    I could say the same back to you.

    So here is a few yes/no questions.

    Do you believe homosexual sex should be banned?
    Would you kill a person who is working on the Sabbath?

    Is your religion the one true religion?

  106. on 27 Oct 2013 at 2:24 am 106.the messenger said …

    1105.Angus and Alexis, none of the biblical laws command mass genocide, murder, or discrimination.The law regarding loving your neighbor does not dictate people to murder without a quarrel. Murder is never allowed, according to the laws of the bible.The laws regarding stoning, are actually metaphorical. Jesus revealed that only people without sin are allowed to literally stone a person.The man who was GATHERING firewood on the sabbath was the only person in the bible who was killed for this crime. Killing that man was a one time command, it was not a law that was intended for all time.

  107. on 27 Oct 2013 at 7:56 am 107.Angus and Alexis said …

    I love how you completely dodged the questions with “Metaphors and shit”.

    Do you actually understand just what the bible says “god” did?
    You realize you worship a genocidal maniac?

  108. on 27 Oct 2013 at 7:59 pm 108.the messenger said …

    1107.Angus and Alexis, Jesus proved that in the new testament, the laws regarding stoning are actually metaphorical.

    That is not bogus, that is pure fact. Pay attention.

    GOD only punished the guilty. Calling GOD a “maniac” is like calling a police officer a maniac.

    GOD suffered and died for us on the cross. He is a loving, kind GOD that loves everyone.

    P.S. just because he loves us, doesn’t mean that we won’t get punished for our sins.

  109. on 27 Oct 2013 at 8:09 pm 109.the messenger said …

    1160.Angus, GOD does not discriminate against people. He only discriminates against certain ideas and actions, such as lust, hatred of people, murder, Heterosexual and homosexual people having sex with the same gender, theft, lying, slavery, human sacrifice(meaning killing someone for a ceremony.), and pagan worship.

  110. on 27 Oct 2013 at 11:44 pm 110.Hell Yeah said …

    Messenger,
    Have you actually read the Old Testament? Do you think the Old Testament doesn’t count for the “supposedly” word of god? Humans cut out the Old Testament because they didn’t like the evil your god did in it. Chunks of the New Testament have been cut out as well. Why? Shouldn’t it all count?

    Speaking of murder and slavery, your god promoted it in the Old Testament. Homosexuals….do I really even need to mention how many priests are and the ones of those that molest boys? Pagan worship….Christmas is on December 25th because it copies the Pagan winter festival, and Jesus wasn’t even born in December.

  111. on 28 Oct 2013 at 12:54 am 111.the messenger said …

    1110.Hell Yeah, Pay attention to the following text.

    I assure your that the catholic church and countless other HUMAN churches have not “cut out” the old testament/Hebrew bible.

    Yes, the old testament is a part of the word of GOD, and I assure you that GOD committed no evil in it. He only punished people who did bad things, he is a just and fair GOD.

    Tell me please, what parts of the old and new testament were “cut out”?

    I have read the entire bible from cover to cover and I have yet to see a part in the bible when GOD ever “promoted” slavery or murder. No part of the bible promotes murder or slavery. If you can prove otherwise, please post these imaginary verses of yours on this site, I dare you.

    To help the pagans convert to Christianity, the catholic church selected December 25 as the day to celebrate his birth. Any historian knows that.

  112. on 28 Oct 2013 at 1:54 am 112.Rostam said …

    “Do you actually understand just what the bible says “god” did?”

    Created the universe
    Gave man life
    Gave man laws
    Provided man with food and water
    Commanded man to love one another
    Warned man disobedience had consequences
    Patiently waited on man to repent.
    Provided man a path to fellowship with Him.
    Judged mans rebellion

    Yeah, I know what God did.

    What did man do? Lie, steal, cheat, murder, covet, ignores God, hates, sexual immorality, blames God, arrogant, prideful, etc….

  113. on 29 Oct 2013 at 3:34 am 113.Hell Yeah said …

    “Yeah, I know what God did. Created the universe, and…..”

    And supposedly he created plants and light before the sun.

    And he created a universe that is 99.99999% useless.

    And he created humans billions of years after the earth, even though the universe was created for humans. Humans have only been around a puny percentage compared to the earth and the universe. Why didn’t god create humans right after the earth was created? Oh, wait, to get around that, you believers think the earth is only 6,000 years old instead of billions of years.

    I could go on.

  114. on 29 Oct 2013 at 7:25 am 114.Angus and Alexis said …

    “Created the universe”

    False.

    “Gave man life”

    False.

    “Gave man laws”

    Laws existed before the bible.

    “Provided man with food and water”

    No, man fended for themselves.

    “Commanded man to love one another”

    And to be bigots, sheep and deluded assholes.

    “Warned man disobedience had consequences”

    Ohh great, so now humans are nothing more than slaves? Oh please.

    “Patiently waited on man to repent.”

    AKA, did jack shit, and got pissed.
    Ohh wait, isn’t god meant to be perfect?

    “Provided man a path to fellowship with Him.”

    And created atheists, other religions and such to burn, nice.

    “Judged mans rebellion”

    Humans rebelled against squat, not to mention that an omni-everything god cannot be “rebelled” against. And to note that “God” killed a ridiculous amount of innocents, babies anyone?

    “What did man do? Lie, steal, cheat, murder, covet, ignores God, hates, sexual immorality, blames God, arrogant, prideful, etc….”

    Pride is bad now? HAHA, you must be very depressing.

    Not to mention that many of those “man did this” notes are what the minority does.

  115. on 29 Oct 2013 at 6:29 pm 115.A40Y-HorX-Troll.Sock Buster said …

    Rostam,

    Don’t you realize how brillant and incredible men are? I mean look at the world! Men never war. We flew to the moon a few times. Atheists write books and solve all the Earth’s problems. Couldn’t get any better than that. Oh, and we have guys who create tulips as their best friends!

    Lol!!!!

  116. on 29 Oct 2013 at 10:11 pm 116.the messenger said …

    1113.Hell Yeah, you lie.

    I never claimed that the earth is only “6000” years old. I know that it is older.

    FYI, the bible does not state how old the earth is.

    Try using facts, little one.

  117. on 29 Oct 2013 at 10:16 pm 117.the messenger said …

    1166.Hell Yeah, how do you “know” how long humans have been around?

    Where is you proof?

    Do not avoid this question like a little coward.

    Answer it, or go home and cry to your mommy, little man.

  118. on 29 Oct 2013 at 10:28 pm 118.the messenger said …

    1167.Angus and Alexis, are you crazy?

    You can’t just make claims without backing it up with FACTS.

    Can you prove that GOD didn’t create the universe? If he didn’t then where did the universe come from.

    Can you prove that GOD didn’t give us life?

    The bible states that humans dominate over all of the creatures of the earth. That is a fact. Humans are at the top of the food chain. Your science supports the bible’s claims.

    Can you prove that GOD didn’t give us laws? Can you back this up with facts?

    The Bible(GOD’s laws) states that we must love all people. I have yet to find any verses that command us to be “bigots or assholes”.

    FYI, the sheep thing is a metaphor, you idiot. Think for once in your life.

  119. on 29 Oct 2013 at 10:37 pm 119.the messenger said …

    1167.Angus and Alexis, GOD did not let those first borns in Egypt suffer when there bodies died. They died instantly.

    The Egyptians were barbaric evil slave owners, they earned their punishment.

  120. on 29 Oct 2013 at 10:49 pm 120.the messenger said …

    1167.Angus and Alexis, you small minded little child, when will you understand.

    GOD planned out everything in a specific order for one reason, to teach us right from wrong. Life is a perfect test and it is playing itself out perfectly. The purpose of GOD’s plan is to teach mankind right from wrong, and to bring us to perfection by becoming loving, forgiving, and kind.

    GOD planned from mankind to mess up, so we could later learn from our mistakes.

    GOD displays anger sometimes, because it is a part of his plan.

    GOD wants us to love all people, but not all ideas.

    GOD does not have an easy job. He died for us.

    PS. Pride is very bad. Pride is what got General Custer and so many others killed. Prideful people only care about themselves. A humble person cares more about others than himself. Being HUMBLE is good. Being PRIDEFUL is bad.

  121. on 30 Oct 2013 at 1:54 pm 121.Angus and Alexis said …

    Wow, holy shit, that multipost.

    Anyway, messenger, look up “burden of proof” then you will realize why your argument is bullshit.

  122. on 30 Oct 2013 at 11:06 pm 122.the messenger said …

    1121.Angus and Alexis, simply saying that my argument bad does not prove that it is bad.

    Provide proof to support your “bad argument” claim, or leave, you child.

  123. on 31 Oct 2013 at 2:51 am 123.God said …

    the messenger, I don’t approve of you calling people names to make them think you have a good point. I want you to go to confession tomorrow and apologize and ask what you can do to make up for that. 100 Hail Mary’s is a good start.

    God

  124. on 31 Oct 2013 at 7:12 am 124.Angus and Alexis said …

    Messenger said.
    “1121.Angus and Alexis, simply saying that my argument bad does not prove that it is bad.
    Provide proof to support your “bad argument” claim, or leave, you child.”

    Really messenger? Really?
    Did you even go and check what “burden of proof” is?

    Did you even try to comprehend why your argument is bullshit?

    You say “god is real”, so prove it.

    Until you do, by default the standard is that he does not exist.

  125. on 31 Oct 2013 at 11:03 am 125.Stalin said …

    That’s right, no god here.

    Now I have some more Christians to kill off for getting caught with a Bible

  126. on 31 Oct 2013 at 1:26 pm 126.Angus and Alexis said …

    Actually Stalin was an atheist.

    Hitler was the christian.

  127. on 31 Oct 2013 at 8:59 pm 127.the messenger said …

    1177.Angus and Alexis, are you insane?

    In comment 1173 I was arguing the reasons why GOD does what he does, not his existence. STAY FOCUSED.

    Lastly, Hitler was not a christian, he did not believe in GOD.

    This is the definition of a christian.
    “One who lives according to the teachings of Jesus.”

    Jesus commanded us to love all people. Hitler never followed this law. He was a hateful, evil, murderous, man. He was, by definition, not a christian.

  128. on 31 Oct 2013 at 11:58 pm 128.Angus and Alexis said …

    Equally, prove that god does what he does, otherwise he is dismissed.

    Also, the definition of chistian is “a person who has received Christian baptism or is a believer in Christianity.”

    Therefore Hitler was indeed a christian, not a good one however.

  129. on 01 Nov 2013 at 2:17 am 129.Ben said …

    The word Christian was first introduced with the advent of the early church as found in the book of Acts. It was meant as a derogatory term as it literally meant little Christ. The early church was more than believers of God for one can believe intellectually in God but not be a Christian. The Bible makes this case for Satan. Satan certainly would not be a Christian.

    A Christian was a born-again believer who had accepted Jesus Christ as their Lord and as their Saviour. One will find in the writings and lifestyle of Hitler that making the case he was a true Christian would be a dubious task.

  130. on 01 Nov 2013 at 7:08 am 130.Angus and Alexis said …

    “One will find in the writings and lifestyle of Hitler that making the case he was a true Christian would be a dubious task.”

    Ohh?

    Like all of his writings in “Mein kampf” which states that he is a believer of the christian god and his actions were based on how jesus was crucified?

  131. on 01 Nov 2013 at 11:56 am 131.Ben said …

    “Like all of his writings in “Mein kampf” which states that he is a believer of the christian god”

    Yes, although better examples exists. Of course he claimed to believe in God. I never claimed to the contrary. So did Satan and so did Judas Iscariot. This would be called a theist or possibly a deist.

  132. on 01 Nov 2013 at 3:47 pm 132.DPK said …

    Yup, only a “true Christian” gets to say who is actually a “true Christian”.
    Man, don’t these guys ever get tired of running around carrying those goalposts?
    Here is the reality from the Christian’s perspective… correct me if I’m wrong Ben. Regardless of what Hitler did in his time on earth, all he had to do was ask Jesus to forgive him and he is now enjoying an eternity of bliss in heaven with JC and all the angels? Isn’t that how it goes? Jesus took the punishment for OUR sins, and since God is love, all we have to do is ask for his forgiveness and we’ve got it, right?
    As I recall from my christian upbringing, there is only one “unforgivable sin” and that is denying the Holy Spirit. Even among current theologians, exactly what “unforgivable” means is a matter of debate.
    You crazy people and your make believe fantasy worlds are just too hysterical.

  133. on 01 Nov 2013 at 3:55 pm 133.Angus and Alexis said …

    “Of course he claimed to believe in God. ”

    No, he stated he believed in the christian god, therefore he did, why would he lie in his own manifest?

    “This would be called a theist or possibly a deist.”

    No, it is called a christian.

    Stop with the True Christian ramble.

  134. on 01 Nov 2013 at 4:35 pm 134.Ben said …

    “all he had to do was ask Jesus to forgive him and he is now enjoying an eternity of bliss in heaven with JC and all the angels?”

    My opinion is inconsequential. You opinion is moot as well. What matters is what Jesus stated. Now, in the gospels we see a group of people who believed in the “Christian God” who were not Christians. They were called Pharisees. We also see Judas, who was a follower, who was not a Christian. Therefore, the assertion belief or simply making the claim does not make one a Christian. Again, not ny opinion, Jesus’ criteria. Repentance is necessary which is much more than asking forgiveness with the mouth

    Mat 7:21
    John 10:9-10
    Luke 13:3

  135. on 01 Nov 2013 at 7:16 pm 135.A40Y-HorX-Troll.Sock Buster said …

    “Equally, prove that god does what he does, otherwise he is dismissed.”

    LOL!!!!!!

    Alexis and his sidekick Agnus actually believes they can dismiss God. Right! They can’t even dismiss God which is why they are here constantly arguing about God.

    Nope, they have a God obsession and its not going to leave them.

    Oh, and equally you can drop the Hitler and Christianity stupidity. He was a politician and for every quote you provide that he was a Christian I can provide one that he was not.

    He killed off the most prominent Christian in Germany, Dietrich Bonhoeffer. Nuff said

  136. on 02 Nov 2013 at 4:24 am 136.Angus and Alexis said …

    You want to know why many atheists constantly want theists to prove god?

    Its because you worship one of the most evil works of fiction ever made, and praise it.

  137. on 04 Nov 2013 at 4:50 pm 137.the messenger said …

    1136.Angus and Alexis, tell me, what is so evil about the bible?

    The bible teaches love, humility, kindness, forgiveness, compassion, heart, integrity, and loyalty.

    HOW IS THIS BAD?

    The verses regarding stoning are metaphorical. Jesus proved that in the new testament, when he prevented a woman from getting stoned. Jesus said that he will give his stone(the right to execute a person) to the first person who tells him he has never sinned. Jesus proved that only a person who has never sinned is allowed to literally stone another person, and since every human in history has sinned at least once, no human is allowed to literally stone another human. GOD is the only one that has never sinned, therefore GOD is the only person that can literally stone someone.

    If you can disprove my claim, provide evidence.

    Here is proof of GOD. The roman historian, Tacitus, recorded the following event. “Christus, the founder of the name, was Put to death by Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea in the reign Of Tiberius”

    Miracle of the Sun. It was witnessed by 30,000 to 100,000 people(believers and nonbelievers).

    Dr. Almeida Garrett (Professor of Natural Sciences at Coimbra University) witness the event and stated the following:(The sun’s disc did not remain immobile. This was not the sparkling of a heavenly body, for it spun round on itself in a mad whirl, when suddenly a clamor was heard from all the people. The sun, whirling, seemed to loosen itself from the firmament and advance threateningly upon the earth as if to crush us with its huge fiery weight. The sensation during those moments was terrible.”)

    P.S., none of the people at the site of the miracle denied that it happened.

  138. on 05 Nov 2013 at 12:06 am 138.Angus and Alexis said …

    Just google the Skeptics annotated bible…

  139. on 05 Nov 2013 at 2:50 am 139.A said …

    Just go to berenddeboer^net to see Steve Wells effort destroyed by Berend de Boer. Anything else Agnus and/or Alexi?

    LOL!!! They actually though that was a legitimate argument. A guy, who hates the Bible, doesn’t understand the Bible then slams the Bible. That’s never been done. Oh yes, no bias there…..lol.!!!!!

  140. on 05 Nov 2013 at 7:09 am 140.Angus and Alexis said …

    The bible is one perfect word of god (or so people say).

    So there can be no different interpretations, care to explain?

    Also, your link went to a useless website, what the heck?

  141. on 06 Nov 2013 at 1:08 am 141.A said …

    “So there can be no different interpretations, care to explain?”

    Absolutely,

    Do you care to explain? Why can’t there be multiple interpretations? There are correct ones and there are wrong ones.

    Steve Wells is wrong. Simple enough and his hatred and ideology prove it! lol!!

  142. on 06 Nov 2013 at 6:57 am 142.Angus and Alexis said …

    If the word of god is absolute, there can’t be any more than one interpretation.

    So what is the right one?

  143. on 22 Jan 2014 at 1:10 am 143.the messenger said …

    1195.Angus and Alexis, some of GOD’s words are absolute. All of GOD’s words have total authority, but GOD has made modifications to his words. For example, GOD did away with the old covenant and established new covenant to replace the old one.

    Some of GOD’s words are meant to be followed for a sort time, because GOD replaces them with different ones in order to help mankind become better.

  144. on 22 Jan 2014 at 2:55 am 144.Angus and Alexis said …

    You lie yet again.

    The bible is claimed to be gods absolute word.

    Absolutes cannot change.

  145. on 22 Jan 2014 at 11:41 pm 145.the messenger said …

    1197.Angus and Alexis, who claims this? who?

    The bible does not state anything about being absolute.

    Where in the bible does GOD say that the bible is absolute?

    Are you on drugs? seek help.

  146. on 23 Jan 2014 at 3:49 am 146.Angus and Alexis said …

    “1197.Angus and Alexis, who claims this? who?”

    Virtually every christian other than yourself.

    “Are you on drugs? seek help.”

    This is coming from the one who claims that all atheists are moral less communistic Nazi’s?

    What a ridiculous sentiment.

  147. on 23 Jan 2014 at 10:13 pm 147.the messenger said …

    1199.Angus and Alexis, you liar. Many Christians believe that only parts of the bible are absolute, such as the ten commandments.

    P.S., I never claimed that all atheists are Nazis. You are a lying idiot.

  148. on 24 Jan 2014 at 1:20 am 148.Angus and Alexis said …

    “P.S., I never claimed that all atheists are Nazis. You are a lying idiot.”

    You have constantly compared atheists to Hitler in Nazi Germany.
    That is enough for me.

    “1199.Angus and Alexis, you liar. Many Christians believe that only parts of the bible are absolute, such as the ten commandments.”

    That would be another lie.
    There are Christians out there, many of them infact, who claim that the entire bible is absolute.

  149. on 21 May 2014 at 3:44 pm 149.Mike said …

    I will add this, whether you chose to admit it or not publicly, EVERY person on earth knows there’s a God, and deep down in your soul you are afraid because you know there is a hell and by rejecting the one who is revealing himself to you is a certainty of your destination. I pray that the owner of this site will listen to the voice he struggles with everyday before his hour comes. Hell is real and is not a place you want to spend eternity in. And if you don’t believe in God I’m curious as to why you would devote yourself to a website about someone that does not exist.

  150. on 21 May 2014 at 4:01 pm 150.alex said …

    “deep down in your soul you are afraid because you know there is a hell and by rejecting the one who is revealing himself to you is a certainty of your destination.”

    …i’m shivering in fear because the notion is so horrible, but yet i refuse to believe in the crap? because you know hell is real, you just can’t make yourself understand why atheists don’t believe? it’s obvious, you fool. hell aint!

    …xtians cry at funerals because they are overcome with joy at the prospect of their loved ones going to heaven? maybe, deep down, you know you won’t see them again? that’s why xtians cry?

    who’s fooling whom?

  151. on 21 May 2014 at 4:51 pm 151.The Prickly Science Guy said …

    “I pray that the owner of this site will listen to the voice he struggles with everyday before his hour comes.”

    Hi Mike,
    The owner of the site will not even publically acknowledge any association with WWGHA….lol!!!!!!

    However website history from the past have his name associated with WWGHA him as the “Brain” behind the site. He made some money and moved on. Only some silly folks would buy anything this site sells.

  152. on 21 May 2014 at 5:27 pm 152.alex said …

    “Only some silly folks would buy anything this site sells.”

    ….says the master bullshitter martin, science guy, biff, xenon, little ‘A’, Sweetness, boz, RL Wooten, ‘Everyone’, Horatio. see: http://goo.gl/UYo1uS

    no sale here. site says god is bullshit. you make up your own mind, but the dumbass would like to make it up for you. check out his book, http://goo.gl/UYo1uS

  153. on 28 May 2014 at 3:57 am 153.alex said …

    speak up, bitch ass hor. i know you’re lurking. your book needs more content. http://goo.gl/UYo1uS

  154. on 24 Jul 2014 at 7:20 pm 154.frankie said …

    could someone please explain to me why anyone should give a flying fuck about what a person believes…? if you believe in god, goody! if you don’t, who fucking cares…? if science gives you a giant erection, great! go fuck yourself with it…

    k…?

  155. on 24 Jul 2014 at 7:25 pm 155.alex said …

    “should give a flying fuck about what a person believes…?”

    heard of 9/11? dumbass.

  156. on 25 Jul 2014 at 1:47 pm 156.frankie said …

    “heard of 9/11? dumbass”

    hey fuck stick… i thought you “brighty brights” believe that dick cheney flew them planes into them bldgs via remote control from a secret under-ground bunker… right? you tin foil hat wearing nut-job…

  157. on 25 Jul 2014 at 2:09 pm 157.alex said …

    “i thought you “brighty brights” believe that dick cheney flew them planes”

    that’s why you’re another dumb motherfucker.

  158. on 25 Jul 2014 at 2:54 pm 158.frankie said …

    “that’s why you’re another dumb motherfucker”

    wow, you really got me with that one…

    zzzzzzzzzzz

    NEXT!

  159. on 05 Nov 2014 at 7:26 pm 159.Prayer said …

    I just came across this site today, surfing . . . And indeed a good topic; prayer.
    I don’t think I should respond in a simplistic way since it is not a simple question you have, which I suggest is around the line; HAVE I MEANING?
    Ah, let me be simplistic; you have meaning just ask God.

  160. on 06 Nov 2014 at 4:35 pm 160.freddies_dead said …

    1159.Prayer said …

    I just came across this site today, surfing . . . And indeed a good topic; prayer.
    I don’t think I should respond in a simplistic way since it is not a simple question you have, which I suggest is around the line; HAVE I MEANING?
    Ah, let me be simplistic; you have meaning just ask God.

    And how will I distinguish between an answer from your God and something I may merely be imagining?

    After all I can easily imagine a God (indeed I have no choice but to imagine God as there is no objective evidence that one exists). I can also imagine a God speaking to me, but I have no idea how I’d tell whether an answer was actually from God or just from my imagination.

Trackback This Post | Subscribe to the comments through RSS Feed

Leave a Reply