Feed on Posts or Comments 30 May 2016

Christianity Admin on 03 Oct 2013 11:23 pm

GodIsImaginary.com needs technical assistance… Can anyone help?

If you go to Google and type in “GodIsImaginary.com” as the search term, the top entry that Google returns is what you would expect. But when you click on the link, it does not go to GodIsImaginary.com. It gets redirected to some other web site.

Does anyone know how to fix this problem?

We have written to the site’s hosting company. They said that the problem would resolve itself the next time Google indexes the site. But the problem has not resolved itself.

We would be grateful for any assistance you can provide in fixing this problem.

Thanks.

848 Responses to “GodIsImaginary.com needs technical assistance… Can anyone help?”

  1. on 29 Jul 2014 at 12:08 am 1.A The Prickly Science Guy said …

    Freddie Mouse,

    Admission your faith is faulty?

    The jury is still out. I don’t need a competing theory to recognize a bad theory. What I do know is if macroevolution one day IS PROVEN to be true, it will just be more proof of God. Seems HIGHLY unlikely. At the moment, it has nothing other than assumptions and creative drawings. That’s it!! :)

    Sincerely,

    A Recovered Believer

  2. on 29 Jul 2014 at 1:06 am 2.Anonymous said …

    Prick:
    “…if macroevolution one day IS PROVEN to be true, it will just be more proof of God.”

    Of course it will strengthen your belief. Your delusion is unshakable.

  3. on 29 Jul 2014 at 2:16 am 3.TJ said …

    To Anonymous,

    You say,
    “tj, you really need to discuss the age of the planet Earth with the Prick.”

    The Prickly Science Guy says,
    “I do think for myself…”

    The way I see it, you use no name, so as I cannot track your words. You order me attack some else’s rational, using their name as a substitute for your Momma’s skirt.

    You would have me cross the playground, demand his lunch money and tell him his “Momma’s so fat I had to take 3 trains and bus just to get on her good side.

    You asking me to start a fight?

    Or do you wish to question my rational or his?
    If so, ask me or him in your own name… Mr Anonymous.
    ——————————–

    Seeing as you did present this to me, as a show of good faith I entertain you and not reject this. I will try to fathom a meaning, and I will stay to true to my beliefs.

    “if a wizard or even an advanced scientific method could turn your wives and children (men) or your husband and children (women) into a bunch of apples. how many of you would say oh the apples just consist of molecules i will eat it happily.”

    When God god formed Man, he did so from the earth (carbon based). He did the same with the vegetation (carbon based).

    Both the Man and the apple have additional information based coding systems to govern their form and function.

    However it is only when God breathed the breath of life into the Man that he became a living soul. Something extra was added.

    It would seem rational that for the soul to enter, their had to something existing for it to enter. It would seem rational to suggest that the soul only becomes “living” when married to the body created for it.

    In your scenario, the atoms as well as the information would also change. This in effect would be similar to if the body had been destroyed. The soul would not be able to enter the apple because both structurally and code wise it is not set up to accept a living soul.

    If the apple was to be converted back to Man, then could the personal testimonies and eye witness accounts of out of body experiences and those that have clinically died be considered a rational source for insight in our hypothetical scenario?

    The bible claims that all will rise from the dead, and souls will be reunited with their bodies rebuilt without faults in the day of judgement.

    The real question is, what becomes of the soul once detached?

    I enjoyed your question… talk to me in your own name, I’m not out to get you.

  4. on 29 Jul 2014 at 1:39 pm 4.Anonymous said …

    tj

    You asking me to start a fight?
    Or do you wish to question my rational or his?
    If so, ask me or him in your own name… Mr Anonymous.

    A fight? Between two followers of the Christ-guy? Yeah, that would be cool. You can follow the discussion of the Earth’s age with talks about how many angels can fit on the head of a pin, how the animals migrated to the Ark, and what life would be like if that bitch Eve had never gotten hungry.

    Chive on, tj.

    BTW, I detect you’re concerned about my anonymity. Well, how about this: you’ll know it’s me when I address you as tj, (lower case) and I will start to ALWAYS use the block quote option to highlight what people write on the blog. OK? I will also refer to your cohort by some of his other aliases such as “little a”, the Prick, Wooten, Horatio. Seems the Prick keeps changing aliases to create distance from what he’s previously written. Can’t blame him for that.

  5. on 29 Jul 2014 at 1:58 pm 5.The Prickly Science Guy said …

    TJ,

    Anonymous aka Freddie is not very creative. The aliases now are posting as another anonymous.

    What is fun is watching Alex attack other atheist because he cannot comprehend when other atheists post!

    lol!!!!

  6. on 29 Jul 2014 at 6:18 pm 6.Anonymous said …

    Prick:

    Anonymous aka Freddie is not very creative.

    Sorry! Maybe also discuss another biblically relevant topic: Did Adam and Eve have belly buttons? I can come up with more!! I would suggest discussing something science related like: we share 98+% of DNA with chimpanzees. But we know how you’ll turn all pissy if we get into those details.

    aka Freddie

    . Don’t make me laugh, Wooten!!! Any idea where that inert gas bag, Xenon, went?

  7. on 29 Jul 2014 at 11:37 pm 7.TJ said …

    To Mr Anonymous,

    You said,
    “I would suggest discussing something science related like: we share 98+% of DNA with chimpanzees.”

    Is 98+% the currently accepted ratio?

    What % is still considered junk DNA?

    What % of change does genetic research claim to cause complete failure?

    And how many base pairs make up 1% of human DNA?

    Investigate and report your findings so that together, we might be able to rationalise the current scientific evidence.

    ————————

    …and, “Did Adam and Eve have belly buttons?”
    If God created with purpose in mind, what purpose would there have been for them to have a belly button?
    How old did they physically appear?
    What colour was their skin, hair, eyes?
    We can only speculate.

  8. on 30 Jul 2014 at 12:49 am 8.The Prickly Science Guy said …

    “I would suggest discussing something science related like: we share 98+% of DNA with chimpanzees”

    ok, yes and you conclude what? Let me guess, life exploded from the oceans, time and chance, climbs ashore time and chance bacteria becomes a chimp and wallah! A man appears!! Lol!!!! Yes? Who needs s Grand Designer, huh??

    “Don’t make me laugh”

    Too late Freddie mouse!!

    lol!! :)

  9. on 30 Jul 2014 at 1:02 am 9.Anonymous said …

    Anony: “Did Adam and Eve have belly buttons?”

    tj:”If God created with purpose in mind, what purpose would there have been for them to have a belly button?
    How old did they physically appear?
    What colour was their skin, hair, eyes?
    We can only speculate.”

    The fact that you appear to be seriously contemplating the existence of Adam/Eve leads to to think that you’re toying with me. Or, maybe, you literally believe that there was a god which created Adam; with Eve springing forth from Adam’s spare rib. And they lived in a magical land with talking evil serpents and forbidden fruit.
    It’s just too bad for you, tj, that this falls into the historical sciences section of the Prick’s classification system of stuff. He’ll tell you nobody was there to take a picture. The fossils of Adam and Eve have not been discovered. There is no proof; you’re right, it’s only speculation. But on the spectrum of speculation this falls close to the batshit crazy end of the scale. At least for evolution there’s hard data and evidence. For the Prick that has to be at least closer to mid-scale.

  10. on 30 Jul 2014 at 2:01 am 10.TJ said …

    Mr Anonymous,

    Is this not the same you? Who said…

    “you see i am deep. i search out all viewpoints, ideas faiths and intermingle with all wisdom.
    if i am not thrown by the christian view completely, i am not going to be moved by a few foul mouth rants of a few athiest.”

    It seems I am either confusing you with someone else, or you are toying with me.

  11. on 30 Jul 2014 at 2:03 am 11.Anonymous said …

    Mousey:“I would suggest discussing something science related like: we share 98+% of DNA with chimpanzees”

    the Hor: “ok, yes and you conclude what?”

    I conclude the same as you do, Prick. We are very similar to the apes. What does that mean? What COULD it mean? Why don’t you look up orangutangs to see how similar they are to humans and maybe we’ll start getting a pattern going? Next look into when Homo habilis became extinct. See how long Homo sapiens have existed (hint: in geologic time it’s not so long). And just keep going. See what you come up with.

    Pssst, Prick. Go easy on tj. He’s into Adam and Eve mythology and probably takes the Ark story as a true historical event.

  12. on 30 Jul 2014 at 2:38 am 12.TJ said …

    Mr Anonymous,

    “We are very similar to the apes. What does that mean? What COULD it mean? ”

    If you were to assess two books written by the same author. Would you expect there to be similarities regarding sentence structure, language usage, punctuation and writing style.
    Would you assume the story to be the same in both books?

    ———————–

    Pssst, Prick. Go easy on tj. He’s into Adam and Eve mythology and probably takes the Ark story as a true historical event.

    What was the meaning of “ad hominem” again?

  13. on 30 Jul 2014 at 3:12 am 13.The Prickly Science Guy said …

    “And just keep going. See what you come up with.”

    OK,done!………..So what did you conclude Freddie Mousey?? Time & Chance? Soup? High information systems randomly forming from lifeless soup? That your conclusion?

    lol!!!!

  14. on 30 Jul 2014 at 12:00 pm 14.Anonymous said …

    Mouse:“And just keep going. See what you come up with.”

    Prick: OK,done!

    That took all of, what, 5 minutes? And you still managed to incorrectly make an association of evolution with abiogenesis. Yes, the delusion of a god cannot be questioned or tested by yourself. The faith is strong in this one.

  15. on 30 Jul 2014 at 12:25 pm 15.A The Prickly Science Guy said …

    “That took all of, what, 5 minutes?”

    lol!!!, oh Freddie Mouse! I have heard this same stuff for 50 years and I bought in. Do you think your snippets are new? Really mate, you are not original here. lol!!!

    “incorrectly make an association of evolution with abiogenesis”

    lol!!! are you really this uninformed? This is like saying orange juice is not associated with the orange!

    sigh………

  16. on 30 Jul 2014 at 12:42 pm 16.Anonymous said …

    Prick: I have heard this same stuff for 50 years and I bought in.

    It just took a battle with addictions issues that made you see the light. I understand.

  17. on 30 Jul 2014 at 3:07 pm 17.TJ said …

    “incorrectly make an association of evolution with abiogenesis”

    What is the alternative…what would be correct?

  18. on 30 Jul 2014 at 5:58 pm 18.Anonymous said …

    Mouse: “incorrectly make an association of evolution with abiogenesis”

    tj: What is the alternative…what would be correct?

    Great question. Why not ask the Prick?

  19. on 30 Jul 2014 at 6:07 pm 19.A The Prickly Science Guy said …

    “What is the alternative…what would be correct?”

    Great question TJ. Associating the various abio theories with macroevolution is the correct scenario. Macro is dependent on abiogensis. For atheists, the alternatives are so silly they are embarrassed by them. Alien seeding, spontaneous generation, miller-urey, Proteinoid microspheres, etc but none would produce the high information needed for DNA…….unless Anony-Freedie can prove it…..:)

    Remember, for atheists none of these needed intelligence to take place.

    lol!! :)

  20. on 30 Jul 2014 at 11:22 pm 20.the messenger said …

    620.Anonymous, the catholic church and many Jewish groups do not support the literal interpretation of the ark and Adam and eve.

  21. on 30 Jul 2014 at 11:44 pm 21.the messenger said …

    620.Anonymous, all creatures on the earth besides humans focus on one thing and one thing only, self survival. Compassion, kindness, generosity, and love itself are not natural. So how do humans know about Compassion, kindness, generosity, and love? Since humans are the only creatures on earth to possess these traits, and the bible says that GOD only revealed the knowledge of good and evil to humans, then it is logical to believe that GOD was the one that taught humanity about Compassion, kindness, generosity, and love and gave us the ability to understand them.

  22. on 31 Jul 2014 at 1:51 am 22.TJ said …

    Great question. Why not ask the Prick?

    Mr Anonymous, you previously said to The Prickly Science Guy “And you still managed to incorrectly make an association of evolution with abiogenesis.”

    He gave a brief rational and so did the messenger.
    In case I was unclear, I will ask you again more direct.

    Mr Anonymous,
    In my understanding, spontaneous transition from non living chemicals and atoms into the first simple, self replicating life form is the cornerstone of evolutionary theory. This is critical as a base for freeing the sciences from Moses, removing the need for Divine intervention. In effect, to remove the churches bias and influence and to ensure objectivity.

    Whilst science admits it does not have the answers or the proof to directly support abiogenesis. We are assured time and chance could have created now un-replicate-able conditions in the early history of the earths formation. Ironically Uniformitarianism promotes the idea that the same natural laws and processes that operate in the universe now, have always operated in the universe in the past and apply everywhere in the universe. The very theory used to support deep time required for abiogenesis.

    They provide evidence and supporting theory to prop up the abiogenesis claim by promoting the “facts” of Micro and by extension Macro evolution.

    People are abandoning the churches in droves in light of the constant “science has the answers” message which is subtly and constantly reinforced through TV programs especially children’s programming, education, Block buster movies, advertising and almost all sources of current wisdom point their focus towards interpretation through evolutionary lenses.

    Church groups have been eager to jump on the band wagon and adopt a blend of science via God associations. This is a reaction to dwindling church numbers and coffers.

    I admit freely there is little difference between my claim of a self declaring God with no creator for himself and abiogenesis. That in effect both require a portion of faith to accept.

    I have noted a growing trend among Atheists to separate evolution from abiogenesis, calling it a separate and independent issue. Stating a distinction between abiogenesis as dealing with first life, and evolution dealing with what happened after life began.

    I ask you, Mr Anonymous, again…

    “What is the alternative…what would be correct?”

  23. on 31 Jul 2014 at 2:55 am 23.Anonymous said …

    In my understanding, spontaneous transition from non living chemicals and atoms into the first simple, self replicating life form is the cornerstone of evolutionary theory.

    Incorrect. That would be closer to a description of ABIOGENESIS. There is no effort to separate something that is already separated by definition.

    As an example, just for you, of what evolution studies, let’s agree that there were no humans on planet Earth ten million years ago. There were hybrids – creatures with ape and human features. Many such creatures over the previous millions of years. As of 250,000 years or so there were and continue to be humans. I ask you: Is there any value to studying the fossil record for what happened? Is there any value to looking at shared DNA and physiology between humans and other animals? What can we learn? What, to you, makes the most sense? Hey, if you gotta keep believing in god to avoid becoming the drunk clown, then keep the faith. Chive on!!

  24. on 31 Jul 2014 at 10:26 am 24.freddies_dead said …

    622.TJ said (to Anonymous)…

    In my understanding, spontaneous transition from non living chemicals and atoms into the first simple, self replicating life form is the cornerstone of evolutionary theory.

    Then your understanding is wrong. The cornerstone of evolutionary theory is the change in allele frequencies in populations over time. The Theory of Evolution simply doesn’t care how life got here, instead it attempts to explain how modern biodiversity came about from the first lifeforms.

    Whilst science admits it does not have the answers or the proof to directly support abiogenesis.

    No need to go any further. This is what intellectual honesty looks like. Scientists don’t claim to know what happened so they freely admit that they do not know. All the rest is just your/A the lying prick’s insistence that they should lump abiogenesis in with evolution when there’s no reason why they should do so. Yes, something had to happen to get to those first self replicating organisms, but scientists don’t need to know what that was in order to try and understand the subsequent evolution of those organisms.

    I have noted a growing trend among Atheists to separate evolution from abiogenesis, calling it a separate and independent issue.

    If it’s even a trend (as far as I’m aware it’s only necessary to make the distinction when uninformed people insist that there isn’t one so maybe if those uninformed people didn’t insist on being wrong others wouldn’t have to keep pointing out their error) it’ll actually be a trend among anyone who actually thinks science is worthwhile. It’s not something that applies to atheists specifically. Atheism is concerned with the existence – or rather the distinct lack of existence – of gods. Scientific theories like the theory of evolution etc… are only tangential subjects for atheists.

    Stating a distinction between abiogenesis as dealing with first life, and evolution dealing with what happened after life began.

    Which is exactly how it is. Why would we ignore such an obvious distinction?

    I ask you, Mr Anonymous, again…

    “What is the alternative…what would be correct?”

    I can’t speak for Anonymous* but not trying to associate an unknown with a known would seem like the best way to go to me. As yet science hasn’t figured out how the first life forms came about but they have overwhelming amounts of evidence that it was evolution all the way once those life forms turned up. I’m happy with that and I’ll wait to see what evidence arises from the research into how life actually began before taking a position on which process actually did the job.

    *Despite A the lying prick’s insistence on projecting his own dishonesty onto others, Anonymous and I aren’t the same person. Unlike A the lying prick and the other sockpuppets he’s created like martin, biff, xenon and Horatio (amongst others).

  25. on 31 Jul 2014 at 11:43 am 25.The Prickly Science Guy said …

    “In my understanding, spontaneous transition from non living chemicals and atoms into the first simple, self replicating life form is the cornerstone of evolutionary theory”

    You are correct TJ. This is not just true for Macroevolution but for any concept. The foundation for any concept, like a building, is it’s foundation. In this case, both macro and abio are only speculative at best.

    lol!!!! Freddie mouse posting twice under his separate monikers. NICE!!! Lol!!!!!

  26. on 31 Jul 2014 at 11:55 am 26.TJ said …

    “All the rest is just your/A the lying prick’s insistence that they should lump abiogenesis in with evolution when there’s no reason why they should do so. ”

    lol, I didn’t insist on anything. Just explained my understanding based on observation. Observations you or anybody else can make, as the scientific documentation exists as evidence to it’s own claims.

    Draw your own conclusions from your own observations but don’t put words in my mouth.

    I do not believe in abiogenisis or evolution. I stand by the biblical account, I as yet see no reason to abandon it in light of any man made theory/s. Call me a creationist if you need to label me. I firmly believe that to abandon the biblical account, is the first step to abandoning/rejecting faith.

  27. on 31 Jul 2014 at 1:39 pm 27.Anonymous said …

    Atheists are not trying to separate evolution and abiogenesis. By definition they have two different meanings. It’s Theists who are doing the language shuffle and trying to weld the two terms together. Why? It likely comes down to god of the gaps reasoning and an attempt to sway any fence sitting compadres.

    tj: You agree that humans somehow arrived on planet Earth some 250,000 years ago. I say evolution was the process responsible. I ask you tj ““What is the alternative…what would be correct?”

    tj: Just explained my understanding based on observation.

    Observation? Of what? The bible?

    tj: I do not believe in abiogenisis or evolution. I stand by the biblical account, I as yet see no reason to abandon it in light of any man made theory/s. Call me a creationist if you need to label me. I firmly believe that to abandon the biblical account, is the first step to abandoning/rejecting faith.

    Hate to tell you this, tj, but the bible is also man made. Sorry!!! The only reason to abandon the bible is to use reason. ;-) But I think I see your problem. You need your version of the bible to be true. Maybe something in your past haunts you. Maybe you’re living up to the expectations of the community or relatives, who knows. Try and realize there are many theists that can honestly balance faith and science….but those guys are a lot smarter than you and I. The Prick is NOT one of those guys.

  28. on 31 Jul 2014 at 3:15 pm 28.the messenger said …

    647.Anonymous, the catholic church and many Jewish groups oppose the literal interpretation of the creation story and the ark.

    The bible was written by prophets to, first and foremost, preserve the teachings that they received from GOD, not to take a record of historical events. Having said that, only a small number of historical errors are within the bible.

  29. on 31 Jul 2014 at 3:47 pm 29.freddies_dead said …

    625.A the lying prick posting as The Prickly Science Guy said …

    “In my understanding, spontaneous transition from non living chemicals and atoms into the first simple, self replicating life form is the cornerstone of evolutionary theory”

    You are correct TJ.

    How sweet. You and TJ are wrong together.

    This is not just true for Macroevolution but for any concept.

    Go on then, what’s your theory of concepts? And don’t forget to explain how your God fits into it.

    The foundation for any concept, like a building, is it’s foundation.

    So deep. If only it actually meant something.

    In this case, both macro and abio are only speculative at best.

    Macro is well supported by the evidence – you lost that argument a long time ago. And seeing as no-one is making the claim that abiogenesis is anything more than a hypothesis your comments regarding it are, like you, irrelevant.

    lol!!!! Freddie mouse posting twice under his separate monikers. NICE!!! Lol!!!!!

    And, because he has no reasoned argument to present, A the lying prick once more resorts to the projection of his own dishonesty. How utterly predictable.

  30. on 31 Jul 2014 at 3:47 pm 30.TJ said …

    To the messenger,

    You do not believe the creation story, as a summery of the order of creative events during the six days of creation?

  31. on 31 Jul 2014 at 3:54 pm 31.freddies_dead said …

    626.TJ said …

    “All the rest is just your/A the lying prick’s insistence that they should lump abiogenesis in with evolution when there’s no reason why they should do so. ”

    lol, I didn’t insist on anything. Just explained my understanding based on observation.

    On what observation? Where have you observed “spontaneous transition from non living chemicals and atoms into the first simple, self replicating life form” being “the cornerstone of evolutionary theory”?

    Observations you or anybody else can make, as the scientific documentation exists as evidence to it’s own claims.

    I’ve never observed it and scientists don’t seem to have either, which is why the Theory of Evolution doesn’t even try to explain how the original life forms arose and instead only deals with how we got from there to modern biodiversity. The scientific documentation treats abiogenesis and evolution as 2 different areas of investigation.

    Draw your own conclusions from your own observations but don’t put words in my mouth.

    No one’s putting words in your mouth TJ, you’re the one who repeats the question when he doesn’t like the answer. Abiogenesis and evolution are 2 different things. A the lying prick knows this but insists on conflating the 2 in order to claim that because abiogenesis hasn’t been explained evolution can’t be true.

    I do not believe in abiogenisis or evolution.

    Your choice.

    I stand by the biblical account, I as yet see no reason to abandon it in light of any man made theory/s.

    Your choice. Do you have any evidence of spontaneous creation? What about breeding goats in front of stripey or spotted poles – does that determine their colouration?

    Call me a creationist if you need to label me.

    The Biblical account is Creationism, you label yourself.

    I firmly believe that to abandon the biblical account, is the first step to abandoning/rejecting faith.

    A good first step towards reason IMO.

  32. on 31 Jul 2014 at 4:10 pm 32.TJ said …

    To freddies_dead

    What is it in the biblical account you reject?

    Is it based on the bible itself?

    or

    Is it based on what science has to say regarding origins?

  33. on 31 Jul 2014 at 4:25 pm 33.TJ said …

    “On what observation? Where have you observed “spontaneous transition from non living chemicals and atoms into the first simple, self replicating life form” being “the cornerstone of evolutionary theory”?”

    This is exactly how science communicates the message to the masses. I am not saying you as a atheist believe this, or any other atheist. What I am trying to say to you is that if read, watch or learn anything scientific you are told that life began with the random forming of non living to living and a gradual process of molecules to man begins. This is the message the media continuously pumps out.

    Your getting all hot under the collar because you’ve gone off down assumption lane, misinterpreting my meaning.

  34. on 31 Jul 2014 at 4:31 pm 34.TJ said …

    I mean, hey!
    If you can say evolution happens, but not the way its told to have happened… and the messenger can say God did it, but not the way that it is told to have happened… then I guess it really doesn’t matter what I think now does it?

  35. on 31 Jul 2014 at 5:12 pm 35.Anonymous said …

    tj: “What I am trying to say to you is that if read, watch or learn anything scientific you are told that life began with the random forming of non living to living and a gradual process of molecules to man begins. “

    We can observe the fossil record. We see life starting with simple single celled lifeforms. We see mass extinctions. Explosions of lifeforms. We see that 99.9% of all species that have ever existed are now extinct. 99.9% !!!! Do the math – if there’s 50 million species alive today – and see what you get. What has happened, tj? For myself, there’s only one inescapable and logical explanation. I don’t run from the truth. And if I don’t know the answer I don’t mind saying “I don’t know the answer, let’s investigate”. But I will not, for the sake of convenience, insert a god as a substitute; it must be unsettlingly comfortable for those that do.

  36. on 31 Jul 2014 at 8:13 pm 36.The Prickly Science Guy said …

    Macro is well supported by the evidence”

    This so awesome!! We are going to finally get some evidence. This is really exciting.

    OK Freddie or Mouse or whoever you want to post as…

    Give us your definition of the nature evidence.

    Second as an atheist your evidence should eliminate God as a possible Creator. Remember, evolution for you, the atheist, is suppose to eliminate God.

    TJ this is big lets get ready foe some astounding revelations!!!

    The popcorn is popping…… :)

  37. on 31 Jul 2014 at 9:45 pm 37.Anonymous said …

    the Prick: ” as an atheist your evidence should eliminate God as a possible Creator. Remember, evolution for you, the atheist, is suppose to eliminate God.

    See tj. The Prick wants to desperately insert a god into the equation. And he skews the definition of evolution in an attempt to include abiogenesis…..again!!! He’s so unstable in his faith that he feels he needs factual reality based validation. You and I both know that faith in god doesn’t work that way – maybe one day the Prick will too.

    I don’t see the fingerprints or smoking gun of a god with how evolution works. For me at least, and theists who follow evolutionary theory, we want the facts. If there is a god, it will be evident. Watch as the Prick will yet again try to desperately insert god into an origins of life position while discussing evolution. So predictable. So lame. So lost.

  38. on 31 Jul 2014 at 11:53 pm 38.The Prickly Science Guy said …

    TJ,

    sigh…..see how atheist work? Ask for evidence and proof for macro evolution and they go off on a rant about God. Disappointment again….lol!!!. They actually talk about God more than the theist…..

    Freedie the Mouse once offered up a bony process on a fish as proof!! Lol!!!

    Oh well………

  39. on 01 Aug 2014 at 12:26 am 39.the messenger said …

    650.TJ, guess it could be interpreted as a summery of GOD creating the earth, but not in an actual six days. Or it could be a metaphor to explain a great moral message to humanity. It all depends on how it is interpreted.

  40. on 01 Aug 2014 at 12:52 am 40.Anonymous said …

    Prick: “Ask for evidence and proof for macro evolution and they go off on a rant about God.”

    How come you NEVER challenged anything I’ve written regarding evolution? Scroll up and re-read. I take it you’ve agreed with what has been written. It’s the Prick’s turn now to bring up abiogenesis as a final dodge to avoid challenging the assertions I’ve made regarding life on planet Earth, speciation, and time frames. I am used to it.

    Prick: “They actually talk about God more than the theist…..”

    Scroll way up. Did you see what this atheist’s blog is about? “Exploring God and religion in our world today”. Yeah, that’s right. God and religion. Nice try….maybe not so much. Another typical attempt at diversion from the lost soul. ;-)

  41. on 01 Aug 2014 at 1:28 am 41.The Prickly Science Guy said …

    “How come you NEVER challenged anything I’ve written regarding evolution”

    Nothing to challenge Freedie Mouse. Fish with bony protrusions, similarities, fossils dressed up with artistic dressing does NOT NoT NOT prove evolution. You are uneducated on the subject and you make it so obvious.

    Keep drinking your Kool Aid until you decide to be a freethinker :)

  42. on 01 Aug 2014 at 1:39 am 42.TJ said …

    Mr Anonymous,

    You said…

    We can observe the fossil record. We see life starting with simple single celled lifeforms. We see mass extinctions. Explosions of lifeforms. We see that 99.9% of all species that have ever existed are now extinct. 99.9% !!!! Do the math – if there’s 50 million species alive today – and see what you get. What has happened, tj? For myself, there’s only one inescapable and logical explanation.

    And I think you said this also (@ post #600)… I asked if it was the same you at @ post #615, but you didn’t answer… it was said by an anonymous person…

    “you see i am deep. i search out all viewpoints, ideas faiths and intermingle with all wisdom.
    if i am not thrown by the christian view completely, i am not going to be moved by a few foul mouth rants of a few athiest.”

    You also stated…
    ” “I don’t know the answer, let’s investigate”. But I will not, for the sake of convenience, insert a god as a substitute; it must be unsettlingly comfortable for those that do.”

    You also stated…
    ” Did you see what this atheist’s blog is about? “Exploring God and religion in our world today”. Yeah, that’s right. God and religion. ”

    I say to you, instead of convenience, would you temporarily consider inserting a God into our exploration of God and religion as we search out all viewpoints, ideas faiths and intermingle with all wisdom?

    WE could even explore why evolution and the God of the Bible don’t mix.

  43. on 01 Aug 2014 at 1:41 am 43.TJ said …

    … unless my proposal is too unsettling.

  44. on 01 Aug 2014 at 1:45 am 44.Anonymous said …

    Mouse: “How come you NEVER challenged anything I’ve written regarding evolution”

    Prick: Nothing to challenge

    See tj. Prick/Wooten/”a”/Horatio agrees that the Earth is Billions of years old, Humans have existed for 250,000 years, 99.9% of all species on our planet are extinct, etc, etc. All accepted by the Prick without any challenge whatsoever. Of course there’s much, much more than this to evolution -enough information so that any honest freethinker ;-) should be able to reach a solid conclusion.

    Instead the Prick becomes unhinged and throws a hissy fit jumping up and down with hands covering ears and acts like a typical bratty overtired three year old. Sigh. It’s just his way. We understand.

  45. on 01 Aug 2014 at 2:01 am 45.Anonymous said …

    “you see i am deep. i search out all viewpoints, ideas faiths and intermingle with all wisdom.
    if i am not thrown by the christian view completely, i am not going to be moved by a few foul mouth rants of a few athiest.”

    The above was certainly NOT posted by me. Post #600 was. Note that I call that other fellow “Prick”.

    tj: “WE could even explore why evolution and the God of the Bible don’t mix.”

    Only if you are a fundamentalist/literalist. Somehow the Baptist Francis Collins and Catholic Ken Miller make it work for them. Why don’t you tell me how that’s possible? Their versions of the Christian god will differ from the typical average christians view.

  46. on 01 Aug 2014 at 2:24 am 46.TJ said …

    Ok, but I’ll need some time to research the two names you mention. I’ll then give you my feedback.

    Would it matter if this fundamentalist/literalist label fits me snugly or not? I claim to be a self determining individual.

    I rationalise more like this guy… ” i search out all viewpoints, ideas faiths and intermingle with all wisdom.”… and draw my own conclusions based on what seems reasonable to me.

    I assume you are similar in your approach to such matters, just our conclusions may vary. Would be of no interest if they didn’t right?

  47. on 01 Aug 2014 at 3:38 am 47.Anonymous said …

    “” i search out all viewpoints, ideas faiths and intermingle with all wisdom.”… and draw my own conclusions based on what seems reasonable to me.”

    And yet, this well educated and open minded person has somehow never heard of Francis Collins?
    Enough already.

  48. on 01 Aug 2014 at 5:05 am 48.TJ said …

    Mr Anonymous,

    Lol,

    I am supposed to assume that you have a perfect recollection of all the names of all the material you’ve cast your eye over, and that you do not need to re-visit anything in order to ensure what you write is in line with what you believe.

    or

    do my 8 points of conclusion from a brief look in the direction you pointed leave you with, “argumentum ad hominem” as your only response?

    How many names could anyone rattle off that you or I may not be familiar with their words, statements, beliefs or work, I wonder?

    If you disagree with me, then let your reason be the focus of your rebuttal.

    Unless of course you truly believe that my inability to instantly recall Francis Collins and all he stand for combined with my admittance to needing time to research, somehow conflict with a claim to search out all viewpoints.

    If so, then I guess I have wasted both of our time.

    If you feel I am wasting your time, tell me now, and I will not bother you again. I am sure the messenger and I have much to discuss.

  49. on 01 Aug 2014 at 12:07 pm 49.freddies_dead said …

    632.TJ said …

    To freddies_dead

    What is it in the biblical account you reject?

    Pretty much all of it.

    Is it based on the bible itself?

    or

    Is it based on what science has to say regarding origins?

    Neither, it’s based on the fact that there is a performative contradiction in the statement “God exists”. In order for that claim to be true you need existence to hold metaphysical primacy, however, the claim affirms the metaphysical primacy of consciousness.

  50. on 01 Aug 2014 at 12:08 pm 50.freddies_dead said …

    633.TJ said …

    “On what observation? Where have you observed “spontaneous transition from non living chemicals and atoms into the first simple, self replicating life form” being “the cornerstone of evolutionary theory”?”

    This is exactly how science communicates the message to the masses. I am not saying you as a atheist believe this, or any other atheist. What I am trying to say to you is that if read, watch or learn anything scientific you are told that life began with the random forming of non living to living and a gradual process of molecules to man begins. This is the message the media continuously pumps out.

    An odd claim to make as I’ve never seen science/scientists do this – even a quick look at the Wiki entry on evolution shows that discussion of evolution only starts once there’s lifeforms to evolve; there’s only a very brief note on the origin of life. Note that the media aren’t science/scientists so the way they put things out may not be what science actually says. Maybe you can point us to an example or 2 where you have scientists talking about abiogenesis as part and parcel of evolution (Hint: avoid using actual links as your post will get moderated out and it appears that, while the lights are on, there’s nobody home when it comes to admin/mods on this site).

    Your getting all hot under the collar because you’ve gone off down assumption lane, misinterpreting my meaning.

    What am I misinterpreting? You seem to be saying that abiogenisis and evolution are part of the same package and that science portrays them that way. I’ve simply pointed out that that isn’t the case. Evolution specifically deals with life once it actually exists and, whilst science has some ideas on abiogenesis, there isn’t the data to form any solid conclusions yet. Scientists speak about them as distinct areas of interest.

  51. on 01 Aug 2014 at 12:08 pm 51.freddies_dead said …

    634.TJ said …

    I mean, hey!
    If you can say evolution happens, but not the way its told to have happened… and the messenger can say God did it, but not the way that it is told to have happened… then I guess it really doesn’t matter what I think now does it?

    What is this supposed to mean? I haven’t claimed that “evolution happens, but not the way it’s told to have happened”. It’s not “told to happen” as abiogenesis + evolution as one whole. Evolution and abiogenesis are 2 distinct areas of scientific research. That’s how they’re discussed.

  52. on 01 Aug 2014 at 12:10 pm 52.freddies_dead said …

    636.A the lying prick posting as The Prickly Science Guy said …

    Macro is well supported by the evidence”

    This so awesome!! We are going to finally get some evidence. This is really exciting.

    OK Freddie or Mouse or whoever you want to post as…

    Give us your definition of the nature evidence.

    Already done. You refused to “wade through” it so you lost. Suck it up and move on.

    Second as an atheist your evidence should eliminate God as a possible Creator. Remember, evolution for you, the atheist, is suppose to eliminate God.

    Rubbish, I’ve already pointed out on other threads that all evolution does is show Genesis to be a pile of bollocks, which is only a problem if you’re some Bible literalist who also holds the Bible to be an infallible science textbook.

    I don’t actually need any scientific evidence to eliminate your God. As I’ve told TJ, there’s a performative contradiction in the claim “God exists”. I eliminate your God (along with every other alleged creator God) on that basis.

    However, you’ve had others on this site grant the idea (for arguments sake) that you’re right and evolution is all bullshit. Given you the opportunity to present your own argument. Your evidence for the existence of your God. Your evidence that shows that God first created life. Evidence that your God then spends its time constantly tweaking things and every now and then creating a whole new species ex nihilo. You know what happened? You ran away. You couldn’t do it so you stuck with bleating about how evolution isn’t true. You couldn’t even offer a single argument for the existence of your God. You’ve got nothing other than your assertion that you don’t accept evolution therefore God. That’s it. That’s your whole shebang.

    TJ this is big lets get ready foe some astounding revelations!!!

    The popcorn is popping…… :)

    There won’t be any revelations – astounding or otherwise – you lost this argument already. I’m not going to go through it all again with a dishonest prick who refuses to “wade through” any of the evidence presented.

  53. on 01 Aug 2014 at 12:59 pm 53.A The Prickly Science Guy said …

    “There won’t be any revelations – astounding or otherwise”

    There you have it TJ, a performative contradiction by Anonymous-Freedie.(LOL) He claims macro is true, supported with evidence but provides none! lol!!!

    There was a 5 million year old portion of bone was believed to be a collarbone of a humanlike being which turned out to be in actually part of a dolphin rib. The predicament many anthropologists face is that they desire so much to discover a hominid that any piece of bone to them is a hominid bone. When you spend your life digging up bone fragments and fossils, there is a tremendous desire to heap a lot importance on those fragments…….Thus, the great pretty drawings.

    Just one story among thousands of attempts, not even getting into the dishonest scientist who have falsified findings which lived on for decades as actual “proof”.

  54. on 01 Aug 2014 at 1:47 pm 54.Anonymous said …

    “” i search out all viewpoints, ideas faiths and intermingle with all wisdom.”… and draw my own conclusions based on what seems reasonable to me.”
    And yet, this well educated and open minded person has somehow never heard of Francis Collins?
    Enough already.

    Mr Anonymous,
    Lol,
    I am supposed to assume that you have a perfect recollection of all the names of all the material you’ve cast your eye over

    tj, as I mentioned previously, the REAL Anonymous hilights with the quoting option. See top of THIS post and get with the program.

    Prick: “There was a 5 million year old portion of bone was believed to be a collarbone of a humanlike being which turned out to be in actually part of a dolphin rib.”

    Isn’t it wonderful how science is peer reviewed and self correcting. Piltdown man being another example. This gives me comfort and confidence in the process of scientific inquiry. Peer review is so powerful that when the Prick publishes his book on what’s wrong with evolutionary theory, the entire scientific community will do a face-palm realizing how stupid they’ve been all these years. Popcorn’s on. Waiting.

  55. on 01 Aug 2014 at 2:42 pm 55.A The Prickly Science Guy said …

    “the REAL Anonymous”

    LOL!! He arrogantly sees himself as the REAL anonymous. I bet the other disagrees.

    “Isn’t it wonderful how science is peer reviewed and self correcting.”

    Yes it is Nebraska man, Haeckle embryos, Hahnhofersand Man, Java Man, Orce Man,Ota Benga, Ramapithecus, Ardi, just to touch the tip of the ice berg. If it is so true why the misinformation? lol!!!

    Have no fear! Science will catch up, and when the the ToE deniers overtake the politically correct crowd we can start teaching the kids real science again. Problem we have is the Fanatical evolutionist do all they can to silent dissenters.

  56. on 01 Aug 2014 at 3:03 pm 56.Anonymous said …

    “Unless of course you truly believe that my inability to instantly recall Francis Collins and all he stand for combined with my admittance to needing time to research, somehow conflict with a claim to search out all viewpoints.
    If so, then I guess I have wasted both of our time.”

    Don’t let your christian persecution complex get your panties in a wad there TJ. YOU are the one claiming to have come to a reasonable decision about the truth of evolution and you’ve never heard of Francis Collins… that’s kind of like saying you’ve thoroughly researched the major religions of the world to determine which one is true, but you never heard of this Mohamed fellow…. and give you time to look it up. That tells me your research and considered opinion is worthless… Sir Francis is a foremost authority on genetics and evolutionary biology, and a devout Christian. He seems to have no real problem compartmentalizing reality with his spiritual beliefs, although I imagine it takes some serious mental gymnastics to do so.
    So, like DPK asked you a while back, and you never answered… why should anyone believe you?

  57. on 01 Aug 2014 at 4:19 pm 57.The Prickly Science Guy said …

    Freddie Mouse, why should anyone believe you.

    Lets look at your argument Collins embraces ToE, therefore all theist should?

    Then it follows all evolutionist should embrace Christianity right? Yea? HMMM?

    Lets face it Collins must believe. To not do so would be career suicide. Of course he writes in his books about the “fingerprints of God” being all over Creation. Smart guy seems atheist should embrace God, hmmmm?

    If ToE is true, Collins has the right concept. But it hasn’t yet been proven. All the atheist have here is “this guy believes”. I will not bother to list all who do NOT believe. Lol!!!!

    See ya Freddie aka Mouse.

  58. on 01 Aug 2014 at 4:23 pm 58.the messenger said …

    676.Anonymous, the adam and eve and the ark thing is a metaphor. The catholic church and many Jewish groups have never interpreted it literally.

  59. on 01 Aug 2014 at 6:16 pm 59.Anonymous said …

    Prick: …Ota Benga, Ramapithecus…

    LOL!!! Going back in time for some of these, are we? Ota was an early 1900’s story.

    If it is so true why the misinformation?

    Lots of reasons. Egos is probably the leader. But, like I said, the misinformation does get corrected. Peer review. (Still waiting for your book crushing evolution…YAWN!!!) The body of the work on evolution stands on it’s own merits. The facts, some of which I’ve stated above (go ahead and scroll up), are not in dispute by yourself. It’s the interpretation of the evidence you have trouble with BECAUSE if it does NOT fit with the god centric explanation you want. You’ll do your best to try and square the circle. And you always fail at it….here comes the abiogenesis argument, again. LOL!!

  60. on 01 Aug 2014 at 6:43 pm 60.The Prickly Science Guy said …

    “the misinformation does get corrected. Peer review.”

    lol!!!! I know! More to cone anonymous the Freddie boy!

    Now if you have evidence supporting ToE as fact… Come on back and share it buddy!

    love ya Freddie mouse!….oh got some kool aid on your shirt.:) or is that sushi?!! :)

  61. on 01 Aug 2014 at 8:12 pm 61.Anonymous said …

    Wooten/Prick/Horatio: Lets look at your argument Collins embraces ToE, therefore all theist should?

    Collins is a lot smarter than you and I. I think it’s very likely he didn’t find the Jesus-guy at the bottom of a bottle. I doubt that he is looking for a theory of god. I’d bet it’s just something he believes and does not question. He doesn’t even slot a god into the abiogenesis argument. In other words, his god is a lot different than your god-of-the-gaps buffoon. No, you should DEFINITELY stay the course, Horatio. Believe in a god and rail against the theory of evolution. Keep fighting your demons. Of course, if the theory of evolution is ever proven in your feeble mind, it strengthens your faith. WOW!!!

  62. on 01 Aug 2014 at 11:19 pm 62.The Prickly Science Guy said …

    “his god is a lot different than your god”

    Lol!!!!!!!!!!! When did I ever offer a god of gaps? Lol!!;;!!!

    Oh Freddie mouse, you so funny. I don’t accept guesses, assumptions, mightofs and coldofs as proof and you get so angry. I have read many of Collins’ books and actually know him and his family from my college days. You know, he is a former atheist just like me? Many theist accept AND many do not buy into to the theory. Too much faith required.

    You are right, he is much smarter than you Freddie mouse so why not believe Freddie boy? Hmmmm? Isn’t that your argument? How about I offer someone else smarter than you who does not accept the theory? You then change ur mind mate?

  63. on 02 Aug 2014 at 12:22 am 63.TJ said …

    To the unreal Anonymous,

    “you’ve never heard of Francis Collins”

    Not what I said. Only that I was pushed for time and needed to refresh my memory.

    I knew I wouldn’t get a chance to respond properly till now. This was evident by my lack of attention, and mix up between you and the “REAL” Anonymous (lol).

    To the “REAL” Anonymous…
    Re. Collins…
    “He seems to have no real problem compartmentalizing reality with his spiritual beliefs, although I imagine it takes some serious mental gymnastics to do so.”

    I imagine Collins has been under all sorts of scrutiny from many sources, his discussion to write about his faith, an explanation to his critics.

    I can’t ask Collins anything, not from here… but hers are three quoted claims derived from Collins’s book The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief. The 3 claims are a summery by book reviewer Paul Nelson’s.

    1.“Faith that places God in the gaps of current understanding about the natural world may be headed for crisis if advances in science subsequently fill those gaps” (p. 93). We cannot use causal action by a transcendent intelligence to explain puzzling natural phenomena. In short, no God?of-the? gaps allowed.

    2.“Darwin’s framework of variation and natural selection,” but especially Darwin’s picture of a Tree of Life—the common ancestry of all organisms on Earth—“is unquestionably correct” (141). Universal common descent by natural processes is scientifically non?negotiable. The theory of neo?Darwinian evolution cannot rationally be doubted by any educated person.

    3.The best way to reconcile the propositional content of a transcendentally grounded morality with modern evolutionary theory is what Collins calls “BioLogos,” his renaming of “theistic evolution.” BioLogos is “not intended as a scientific theory” (204), but it is “by far the most scientifically consistent and spiritually satisfying”…. ” a reasonable Christian will find herself embracing theistic evolution—BioLogos—if she wishes to be heard in our current culture.”

    It seems Collins needed to account for what he observed in his work. Frustrated with science’s lack of current proof. He took comfort in his patients apparent rigours spiritual faith. He claims a spiritual awakening upon accepting Christ.

    The rest is Collins’s attempt to reconcile the unknowns of God, science, observable data with “Facts” based on theoretical interpretation.

    Mr Anonymous, I will give you that science makes a distinction between “Abiogenisis” and “Evolution”. Treating them as two separate areas of research.

    Evolution is still just a theory, who’s aim lies at separating God from science. Many “evidences” support the theory in their evolutionary interpretations. This however does not rule out by default any other interpretations.

    Nor does it stop Government funded media from presenting evolutionary theory as fact whilst glancing over the abiogenisis issue as a collective truth to an audience that is conditioned to accept whatever is presented to them.

    Are you aware of the apparent “freshness” of dinosaur bones believed to be millions of years old? How many revisited bones in storage, have been cut up and found to appear too fresh.

    Instead of questioning the long age theory of the bones, instead the accepted time-frames for biological breakdown are in question.

    Also this has lead to a greater study of bone density in fossils. Bones long believed to be completely mineralised are being opened up for analysis. This has begun a process to reclassify many dinosaur finds, as evidence continues to emerge suggesting that many of the smaller and medium sized dinosaurs may actually be representatives of developmental age stages. Currently dinosaurs with bony and plated protrusions as adults are presenting the best cases for study.

    What does an apparent freshness of bones mean for long ages? If evolution is correct and requires long ages. Is it the process of fossilisation, accepted time-frames for biological breakdown, long ages or evolutionary theory that needs to be reviewed? Or can we separate then into individual areas of study where one does not impose its findings upon the others?

  64. on 02 Aug 2014 at 12:32 am 64.TJ said …

    To the messenger,

    Even Collins stresses that evolutionary theory does not allow for a God in the gaps of knowledge.

    I do not doubt your belief in God, your personal spiritual experience, nor your born again claim.

    If you are welcoming to a discussion, I would ask how do you manage to reconcile God and evolution?

    I would suggest the premise of evolution cancels out the most fundamental claim of Christianity… that man kind requires a saviour.

  65. on 02 Aug 2014 at 3:38 am 65.alex said …

    to the dumbass, motherfucker, tj

    you posit that because element decay is unreliable (…contamination and other factors come into play..), the 4.5 billion year old earth is suspect. to fit your 10,000 year old earth, you’d have to recalculate and speed up the decay rate rather tremendously, don’t you agree? if you do the math, the decay rate would have to be outrageously high to match your 10,000 year old earth, agree?
    because you think this high speed decay is possible, your biblical, 10,000 year old earth is as probable as any. of course, you can’t replicate this sped up fantasy. you just like it.

    you dumb motherfucker. using this bullshit fantasy of an unproven high speed, element decay to support the bullshit young earth is a dumbfuck as using the bible to support your god. bullshit on top of bullshit.

    still not convinced? annual glacier layers have been counted to over 700,000 years. oh, no! how about bullshit, multiple annual winters? calculate 70 winters in one year and viola!, the 10,000 year old earth is possible. there ya go. bullshit multiple annual winters support the bullshit young earth.

    dumbass, motherfucker. still not convinced? stellar distance calculation you doubt because of the unreliability of the speed of light? using your 10,000 year old earth, light would have to be sped up to fit your young earth. would you care to prove this speedy light? but that doesn’t matter does it? you like your bullshit speedy light to prove your bullshit young earth.

    dumbass, motherfucker.

  66. on 02 Aug 2014 at 3:45 pm 66.Anonymous said …

    tj: Evolution is still just a theory, who’s aim lies at separating God from science. Many “evidences” support the theory in their evolutionary interpretations. This however does not rule out by default any other interpretations.

    JUST A THEORY? Maybe it’s time you looked up a definition of “SCIENTIFIC THEORY”. If there’s JUST a theory of gravity, feel free to test the theory by jumping off of your roof. And NO, it does NOT aim to separate god and religion. I always thought evolution was originally Charles Darwins attempt to explain the biodiversity of life on Earth. Many people in the 1800’s were starting to question the church/bible commonly accepted stance of “fixed species”. The research since Darwins time has put the lock on the hypothesis. Of course, there’s always going to be wacky fringe elements (for lack of a better term) who oppose logic and reason because it impacts their addictions rehab, customs, traditions, etc.

    Science does not deal in comforting absolutes. When done properly, it asks questions/hypothesizes and unrelentingly and dispassionately seeks the answer. Being mere humans, our egos occasionally interfere in the work. But science will always self-correct with peer review and further research. There is no “end goal” in mind other than to understand.

  67. on 02 Aug 2014 at 4:16 pm 67.Anonymous said …

    666.Anonymous said …

    Wow!!! What excellent timing!!!!!

  68. on 02 Aug 2014 at 7:28 pm 68.The Prickly Science Guy said …

    “If you are welcoming to a discussion, I would ask how do you manage to reconcile God and evolution? ”

    I don’t see the need. God is the absolute necessary being and macroevolution is man’s attempt to explain how that Being created. The ToE gets weaker by the decade and another 50 years it will be replaced with another theory.

    Don”t confuse microevolution with macro. Micro is a proven theory will macroevolutolution uses micro in a bad attempt to justify the macro theory.

  69. on 02 Aug 2014 at 8:41 pm 69.Anonymous said …

    tj: “If you are welcoming to a discussion, I would ask how do you manage to reconcile God and evolution? ”

    the Prick/Horatio/Wooten: I don’t see the need. God is the absolute necessary being

    You theists have your own flavours of god, your own interpretations of the bible. This shouldn’t surprise you, tj. The Prick might as well give up trying to figure things out. Much safer that way. But, like typical christian reasoning, if evolution is true in his mind, his faith is actually strengthened. By “typical christian reasoning” I am talking about, as an example, praying for safe passage of your relatives during a journey and then, if they die, saying they’re in a better place/it was all part of god’s plan/etc. If it is a better place, wouldn’t you pray for that originally? And if it was all god’s plan, what good were the prayers?

  70. on 02 Aug 2014 at 8:42 pm 70.alex said …

    “The ToE gets weaker by the decade and another 50 years it will be replaced with another theory.”

    even if it did, your bullshit god is still in the fertilizer bin, ain’t it?

    oh, look. you broke your old record. your TOE count is up to 124. again, throw out the TOE and where does that leave your god? in the same shitpile with the ufo alien seeder motherfuckers. waah! they won’t teach creationism in schools!

    here’s your latest tally at: http://goo.gl/UYo1uS

    TOE:124 macro:119 soup:47 programmer:13 obsess:29 chevy:18 moral:250

    dumbass, bitch.

  71. on 03 Aug 2014 at 12:38 am 71.TJ said …

    “JUST A THEORY? Maybe it’s time you looked up a definition of “SCIENTIFIC THEORY”. If there’s JUST a theory of gravity, feel free to test the theory by jumping off of your roof. ”

    Your right! We say the “Laws of Gravity”, for the very reasons used to define the differences between “hypothesis”, “Theory” and “Law”.

    The following explanation is a cut and paste from a Chemistry wed site…

    A scientific theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing. A theory is valid as long as there is no evidence to dispute it. Therefore, theories can be disproven. Basically, if evidence accumulates to support a hypothesis, then the hypothesis can become accepted as a good explanation of a phenomenon. One definition of a theory is to say it’s an accepted hypothesis.

    Repeated observed “variation within species” is abundant with evidence. This process by which one species becomes two that cannot interbreed has also been repeatedly observed.

    This inability to interbreed is always observed as a loss of compatible information. And NOT as a result of extra information…not even once has it been observed that extra information has been added/obtained from a source other intelligent intervention(Man).

    Surly the observations don’t match the theory? Perhaps evolution should have remained a hypothesis as my year 11 chemistry teacher conceded way back in 91 when I had this argument with him.

  72. on 03 Aug 2014 at 12:52 am 72.TJ said …

    To Alex,

    Read the wiki page on “The Little Ice Age”.

    You’ll notice observed historical testimony to rapid glacier growth.

    You’ll read a great variety of “hypothesis” as explanations as to the causes of greatly fluctuating weather phenomenon, including the “Medieval Warm Period”.

    What you won’t find is a single concrete statement that claims anything beyond rational speculation.

    You claim that we can dig up some ice cores and know so much. Does nothing to sway me, any-more than your uninspired attempts at “ad hominem”.

  73. on 03 Aug 2014 at 1:12 am 73.alex said …

    “Does nothing to sway me, any-more than your uninspired attempts…”

    that’s why you’re a dumb motherfucker. who’s trying to sway your dumbass? your position on 10,000 year old earth is so stupid, many of your homies have given up on it. fossil dating you don’t buy, distance computation and the speed of light you find suspect and glacier core samples you totally ignore. all of these are the basis for your dumbass young earth?

    theory you say? i guess calculating the hypotenuse is still theory to you? but of course you can’t disprove the Pythagorean Theorem, could you? you dumbass motherfucker.

    ad hominem enough for your motherfucking ass? congratulations bitch. you successfully joined the hall of fame idiots. you are now member number three. here’s your own bullshit collection: http://goo.gl/5wWrHF

  74. on 03 Aug 2014 at 1:15 am 74.TJ said …

    To The Prickly Science Guy,

    The Biblical God of the Abraham, is this the God you speak of, when you say in response to reconciliation?…

    I don’t see the need. God is the absolute necessary being and macroevolution is man’s attempt to explain how that Being created.

    Sorry if I sound confused. With all the back and forth accusations it can be hard to determine what someone claims to believe.

    Please, correct me if I’m mistaken.

    You consider “micro-evolution” or “variation within species” and “natural selection” to be similar things and well supported theory.

    Macro-evolution however, not well supported theory at best.

    God, you consider to be essential for life to begin with.

    Millions of years or not?

  75. on 03 Aug 2014 at 1:25 am 75.TJ said …

    To Mr Anonymous,

    “You theists have your own flavours of god, your own interpretations of the bible. ”

    And you atheists have your own flavours and interpretations of science, theory, the bible, evidence, rational, santa, leprechauns and anything else discussed.

    And why shouldn’t you? We are all individuals looking at the same stuff, trying to make sense of it on a personal level, if we choose to.

    Neither of us allow another’s opinion to be our own, based solely on their claim to “know”.

  76. on 03 Aug 2014 at 1:31 am 76.alex said …

    “Macro-evolution however, not well supported theory at best.”

    who cares? whether evolution is bullshit or not, it doesn’t do a damn thing for your god does it? your god ain’t no more valid than the damn space aliens seeding the earth, is it?

    calling into question all of these things is irrelevant. your god and all the other countless gods are all equally bullshit. no? prove it then, bitch, motherfucker.

    what do i believe in? Pythagorean theory, bitch. oh, and seatbelts too.

    look, your bullshit legend grows. http://goo.gl/5wWrHF

  77. on 03 Aug 2014 at 1:35 am 77.TJ said …

    To Alex,

    Thanks mate, now it will be easier to check and cross reference what I’ve said previously.

    No more incessant scrolling for me.

    All in one easy to find location.

    Finally the wait is over.

    Cheers

  78. on 03 Aug 2014 at 1:36 am 78.alex said …

    “And you atheists have your own flavours and interpretations…”

    and? guess what, you dumbfuck. all atheists do not believe in your bullshit god. stinky, criminal, short, republican, black, women and other atheists all don’t believe in your bullshit god.

    so what does all this other shit got to do with the discussion of your god? nada, nothing, null.

    just like hor and the dipshit messenger, here’s your own pile of shitlist: http://goo.gl/5wWrHF

    congrats dumbass.

  79. on 03 Aug 2014 at 1:38 am 79.alex said …

    “Thanks mate, now it will be easier to check and cross reference what I’ve said previously.”

    you finally over that xtian persecution shit?

    nice aint it? feel free to write me, motherfucker. the address is on the header.

  80. on 03 Aug 2014 at 1:39 am 80.TJ said …

    To Alex,

    “what do i believe in? Pythagorean theory, bitch. oh, and seatbelts too.”

    If you had your own page, you could just refer people to it. Then you wouldn’t need to keep repeating yourself.

    Luckily I know a guy. Maybe he could hook you up?

  81. on 03 Aug 2014 at 1:41 am 81.TJ said …

    lol, I’m pre-empting your responses now.

  82. on 03 Aug 2014 at 1:46 am 82.alex said …

    “If you had your own page, you could just refer people to it. Then you wouldn’t need to keep repeating yourself.”

    says the self confessed no proof motherfucker who questions every motherfucking thing. light speed, ice core samples, element decay. all bullshit ain’t it?

    you say theory is bullshit. that’s why you’re getting hammered with the Pythagorean theory and now you’re squirming.

    you realized that there are filters on this blog and that you can’t post links? of course you doubt the veracity of this statement, don’t you? how the fuck am i supposed to refer to my page?

    dumbass bitch. try posting a link, you asshole.

  83. on 03 Aug 2014 at 1:48 am 83.alex said …

    “lol, I’m pre-empting your responses now.”

    of course. you can’t help it. san’s free will, you’re following allah’s plan.

    your bullshit xref: http://goo.gl/5wWrHF

  84. on 03 Aug 2014 at 1:59 am 84.TJ said …

    To Alex,

    “fossil dating you don’t buy, distance computation and the speed of light you find suspect and glacier core samples you totally ignore. all of these are the basis for your dumbass young earth?”

    No, not at all. My young earth is based on my answer to this question by you in relation to the bible…

    ““if the source is divine, wouldn?t you expect simple, clear, brilliant directives/wisdom?””

    My answer was…
    “Yes, I would expect exactly this.”

    My young earth is derived from a literal reading of the biblical text.

    My arguments above are a defence of my beliefs against supposed proofs against my personal saviour. I have never hid my bias of my beliefs to you or anybody here.

    In fact you can read all about what I’ve said in my personal automated log at http://goo.gl/5wWrHF

    What you will notice however, is your own ability to consistently misinterpret what I’ve said.

  85. on 03 Aug 2014 at 2:10 am 85.alex said …

    “…your own ability to consistently misinterpret what I’ve said….”

    then illuminate my dumbass. you reconcile your 10,000 year old earth by questioning the validity of element decay but all you have are generalities. to support your 10k earth, you’d have to speed up the decay rate. did i misinterpret this?

    you have no proof for this speed up decay. did i misinterpret this? you guess there are certain factors that could bring up this speed up decay. did i misinterpret this?

    your entire stance on this blog is that even though you have no proof, your god claim is just as valid as any other claim. did i misinterpret this?

    speak up bitch.

  86. on 03 Aug 2014 at 2:22 am 86.Anonymous said …

    tj: not even once has it been observed that extra information has been added/obtained from a source other intelligent intervention(Man).

    Well, is there anything we can look at or explore to try and understand our genetic relationship to chimps, our nearest “cousins”? We should be able to learn something from such exercises, yes? I might suggest doing a google search “Ken Miller fused DNA” . Mr Miller is a practicing Catholic who fights against the ID movement because ID is lazy/incorrect thinking. Watch the video, a little more than 4 minutes long.

  87. on 03 Aug 2014 at 6:47 am 87.TJ said …

    I have no problem with science, scientific methods or scientific theory in of themselves.

    What I have an issue with is being told that these are my only options in consideration of my origins.

    I have issue with being told that I can’t see past my own nose, whilst you are all locked in your own world views.

    I have been told not to use biblical text to support my viewpoint, so I have chosen to engage all of you on your terms. Then I am told not to do that too.

    I thought I was honest and up front with all my claims, engaged all query and followed with my rational s. I didn’t ask that anyone should accept my views, I thought I stated a respect for anyone to believe what they will by their own free will, I wished to simply discuss the existence of a God.

    And yet it seems taboo to mention associated written material, claimed to have come from the word of God. It seems taboo to criticize scientific rational and to look a bit deeper for reason and meaning.

    I have issue with being told that my thinking is lazy/incorrect thinking, and being constantly subjected to ad hominem, instead of rational if you don’t agree.

    The attitude displayed here is similar to those received when voicing concerns of compromise within religious circles. It could be argued and indeed has been that science is the new religion with all its theories on origins.

    The stupidity of it all is this, as soon as something is said that is not agreed upon all sides resort to beating their chest and demanding proof for which they themselves cannot provide for their own claims.

    No lessons are learnt, no desire to try a different approach, only perpetual argument. If this is all this blog can produce from the regulars, then what chance is there for a greater audience to engage in conversation.

    We will never know if last guy to leave due to the stupidity of others had the answer someone was looking for, or a query which lead to greater understanding.

    Aren’t we all looking for the same thing? Answers to burning questions? Or at least areas to investigate. None of us have the time required to become experts in all areas of perceived knowledge.

    To say we can’t question those that claim to know or that which is said to be proof is narrow and limited in the truest sense.

    To rule out an entire world-view without scrutinising it’s claims for yourself is something I am not willing to do. But when I scrutinise the claims of science, I have lazy/incorrect thinking?

    Hypocrisy at its finest.

  88. on 03 Aug 2014 at 12:22 pm 88.alex said …

    “What I have an issue with is being told that these are my only options..”

    persecuted? appeal to sympathy? who said anything about your ONLY options? you hang on to your 10k earth just as the other moron hangs on to his rape shit even in the face of many observations and you’re whining? dating methods, erosion rates, and ice deposits you easily dismiss as questionable and at the same time you righteously proclaim that your bullshit viewpoints are just as viable as any scientific considerations?

    “I have been told not to use biblical text to support my viewpoint,…”

    that’s why you’re a dumb motherfucker. if a ufo believer pulled out a bullshit alien text and used it to support his belief, would you even consider it?

    “The attitude displayed here is similar to those received…”

    what you get here is rock solid refusal to swallow your shit. all these other crap you bring up is an attempt to discredit and undermine the atheist common denominator, a disbelief in your god. note the “your god”.

    “Aren’t we all looking for the same thing?”

    no we ain’t. xtians fantasize about “more” after death, a big distinction. this fantasy forces xtians to make up shit and when folk bleh, you morons righteously question the atheist lack of fear or that atheists choose to go to hell.

    we observe and doubt similar things, but these things stand on their own. the big bang, abiogenesis and dark energy may all be suspect, but they’re all subject to scrutiny, review and maybe refuted. and you want your creationism to be considered based on your faith alone? and you want atheists to stop the lazy and incorrect thinking?

    “To rule out an entire world-view without scrutinising it’s claims…”

    so you turn the shit around? the atheist due diligence is not enough? your creationism has been discussed to death and you still want consideration? how motherfucker? pray to allah so that i will have this ability to ignore observations.

    go fuck yourself, dumb motherfucker.

  89. on 03 Aug 2014 at 12:52 pm 89.Anonymous said …

    tj: I have issue with being told that my thinking is lazy/incorrect thinking

    Anyone who believes in a god and THEN tries to find said god through science has attached a bias to their work. The individual must then operate so that the god, no matter what the science says, MUST exist. This is lazy/incorrect thinking. You see, tj, there’s a reason it’s called faith. It does not require any proof. I have faith (the other definition) you understand what I am trying to say.

  90. on 03 Aug 2014 at 2:27 pm 90.alex said …

    “The individual must then operate so that the god, no matter what the science says, MUST exist.”

    and the faith is not enough. he wants atheists, like me, who doubt other shits, to share/partake or at the very least consider that on faith alone, his god is just as viable as any.

    and how is this bitch, tj motherfucker any different than the neighborhood bible humpers? or the sign waving assholes? or the kneeling touchdown praying motherfucker? or the morons praising jezebus for saving his cancerous aunt while forsaking countless others because it’s not in god’s will. the not in god’s will is supposed to make the dying cancer motherfucker feel better. oh, i fergit. them’s not real xtians..

    fuck this tj asshole motherfucker.

  91. on 03 Aug 2014 at 7:30 pm 91.The Prickly Science Guy said …

    “You consider “micro-evolution” or “variation within species” and “natural selection” to be similar things and well supported theory.”

    Absolutely. Macro has never been observed and is only based on wild assumptions.

    Inconclusive evidence to make the call.

  92. on 03 Aug 2014 at 7:38 pm 92.The Prickly Science Guy said …

    “I have been told not to use biblical text to support my viewpoint, so I have chosen to engage all of you on your terms. Then I am told not to do that too.?

    TJ, ignore them mate. They use a faith based belief like macro evolution as evidence of their belief. They cannot define the nature of evidence and consequently provide evidence that supports macroevolution. The do not even understand the difference between historical science and analytical science. They ate not equipped to define ground rules….lol!!!!!!

  93. on 03 Aug 2014 at 7:59 pm 93.alex said …

    “TJ, ignore them mate.”

    yeah and listen to the proven, lying, multiple posting, other bitch motherfucker hor, otherwise known as martin, science guy, biff, xenon, little ‘A’, Sweetness, boz, and ‘RL Wooten’.

    the motherfucker doesn’t agree with your young earth, but you and him he considers contemporhomies.

    look at his two favorite diversions, TOE and macro. they’re running neck and neck! let’s go chevy, go soup. here’s the running count per his fucked up book at: http://goo.gl/UYo1uS

    TOE:124 macro:122 soup:47 programmer:13 obsess:29 chevy:18 moral:250

    again, throw out evolution, micro/macro/fuckro and what do you got? still the bullshit god. fucking assholes.

  94. on 03 Aug 2014 at 8:56 pm 94.Anonymous said …

    The question and answer (with a small twist): So god is false?

    The Prick’s answer: Absolutely. God has never been observed and is only based on wild assumptions.

    The Prick provided examples (previously in this thread) of how science can go off the rails when egos and pre-conceived notions stand in the way. His examples were “Ota Benga, Ramapithecus, etc”. Then he proceeds to demonstrate exactly how this is accomplished. His insistence of god being an ABSOLUTE is not the way of science but of faith – It is a way of thinking that will inevitably lead to deciding how to interpret the information. Thanks, Prick, for the outstanding demo. LOL!!!

  95. on 04 Aug 2014 at 1:07 am 95.A The Prickly Science Guy said …

    “It is a way of thinking that will inevitably lead to deciding how to interpret the information.”

    ROTFL!!!!!!

    Well yeah! Its true for all scientist except for most scientific inquiry the question of God never comes into play.

    Lets take macroevolution.

    God does not need to be considered when determining a fish with a bony process does not meet the burden of proof.

    God does not need to be considered when determining that similarity does not equal ancestor (lol!!)

    God does not need to be considered when determining that microevolution is not proof of macoevolution.

    God does not need to be considered when demonstrating through information theory that high information coding does not spring from primordial soup.

    God does not need to be considered when we have scientist smarter than freedie mouse all over the world doubting macroevolution. lol!!!!

    LOL!!! Oh freddie mouse! You tickle me so but your conclusion that GOD is what drives doubt in macroevolution is demonstratively off the rails.

    NEXT!!! lol!!!!!

  96. on 04 Aug 2014 at 2:04 am 96.Anonymous said …

    Prick: God does not need to be considered when we have scientist smarter than freedie mouse all over the world doubting macroevolution. lol!!!!

    OK. Maybe you’e never heard of “Project Steve”. Look it up. LOL!!!

    God does not need to be considered when demonstrating through information theory that high information coding does not spring from primordial soup.

    YAWN…..another reminder of the abiogenesis argument. So predictable and so lame.

    …for most scientific inquiry the question of God never comes into play.
    Lets take macroevolution.
    God does not need to be considered when determining a fish with a bony process does not meet the burden of proof.
    God does not need to be considered when determining that similarity does not equal ancestor

    And how would a god be considered? Like all science, it must be able to be falsifiable. But your god is absolute, according to yourself. How would that work? How could you say it was one god? It could be a committee of gods. How would you determine it was no god? Do you need god for personal reasons….I see the bias creeping in!!!

  97. on 04 Aug 2014 at 2:21 am 97.TJ said …

    To Alex,

    It’s ok to be scared. A fear of God, is a rational fear.

    Simply ignoring and telling yourself he’s not real will only work for so long.

    Remember, He makes it abundantly clear. If you are not willing to accept the purpose that you were created for, then he has no need of you in the future.

  98. on 04 Aug 2014 at 2:53 am 98.The Prickly Science Guy said …

    “Like all science, it must be able to be falsifiable”

    Hey, you got something right!!!!! Wow!!!

    So……how would you go about falsifying microevolution??? I mean other than it never having been observed??? Lol!!!!

  99. on 04 Aug 2014 at 3:37 am 99.Anonymous said …

    Prick: So……how would you go about falsifying microevolution

    The first step might involve picking a god to believe in so that my vision would narrow. Any suggestions? For a god, that is, just for me.

    Otherwise, look for flaws in the present day reasoning. Propose a hypothesis of how the data SHOULD be interpreted; it must be as bullet proof as possible and have very strong legs because it will need to stand on it’s own. Put it up for peer review and then change the way everyone looks at the data using my rose coloured lenses. TA-DA. Simple.

    Hey, Prick. Did you check out “Project Steve”? LOL!!!!!

  100. on 04 Aug 2014 at 10:59 am 100.The Prickly Science Guy said …

    “Propose a hypothesis of how the data SHOULD be interpreted”

    Peer Review? ID articles have been Peer reviewed and there are many scientist who believe, do you? Lol!!!

    SO you admit falsification of macroevolution is not possible. I agree which is why it is not science. IF you cannot observe it taking place then how can it be falsified? You just keep adding assumptions and pictures :)

    So how would science prove God exists? That would be step one. Start with a simpler task. We agree Socrates existed, but why? Science cannot prove he existed…..? Right? :)

  101. on 04 Aug 2014 at 11:48 am 101.alex said …

    “It’s ok to be scared. A fear of God, is a rational fear.”

    you’re right and now i welcome allah into my heart. what about you? do i need to summon the righteous sword of muhammad to slay your infidel, motherfucking ass? it will be time indeed when all you motherfuckers will bow down to the one and only real god, allah!

    alamo, akhaber, motherfucker.

    you likey?

  102. on 04 Aug 2014 at 11:49 am 102.freddies_dead said …

    653.A the lying prick posting as The Prickly Science Guy said …

    “There won’t be any revelations – astounding or otherwise”

    There you have it TJ, a performative contradiction by Anonymous-Freedie.(LOL)

    I’ll note that the lying prick fails to show any understanding of what a performative contradiction is so it’s amusing to see the accusation. I said there’d be no revelations and there were none. There won’t be any either because the lying prick has already lost this argument several times over. I have no wish to go through it all again just so he can lie about it some more.

    He claims macro is true, supported with evidence but provides none! lol!!!

    I’ve already done so, this is just the lying prick lying about it … as usual.

    There was a 5 million year old portion of bone was believed to be a collarbone of a humanlike being which turned out to be in actually part of a dolphin rib. The predicament many anthropologists face is that they desire so much to discover a hominid that any piece of bone to them is a hominid bone. When you spend your life digging up bone fragments and fossils, there is a tremendous desire to heap a lot importance on those fragments…….Thus, the great pretty drawings.

    Just one story among thousands of attempts, not even getting into the dishonest scientist who have falsified findings which lived on for decades as actual “proof”.

    This is all the lying prick has. A handful of dishonest claims that have been refuted by science. The very same science that the lying prick seeks to discredit. Everyone should note the hypocrisy here.

  103. on 04 Aug 2014 at 11:50 am 103.freddies_dead said …

    698.A the lying prick posting as The Prickly Science Guy said … (to Anonymous)

    “Like all science, it must be able to be falsifiable”

    Hey, you got something right!!!!! Wow!!!

    So……how would you go about falsifying microevolution??? I mean other than it never having been observed??? Lol!!!!

    From the rationalwiki page on disproving evolution:

    “…any of the following would destroy the theory:

    # If it could be shown that organisms with identical DNA has different genetic traits.
    # If it could be shown that when mutations do occur, they are not passed down through the generations.
    # If it could be shown that although mutations are passed down, no mutation could produce the sort of phenotypic changes that drive natural selection.
    # If it could be shown that selection or environmental pressures do not favor the reproductive success of better adapted individuals.
    …”

  104. on 04 Aug 2014 at 11:52 am 104.freddies_dead said …

    700.A the lying prick posting as The Prickly Science Guy said … (to Anonymous)

    “Propose a hypothesis of how the data SHOULD be interpreted”

    Peer Review? ID articles have been Peer reviewed and there are many scientist who believe, do you? Lol!!!

    ID articles peer reviewed by other cdesign proponentists … people who lie about what they are, reviewing other people lying about who they are … yeah, not interested.

    SO you admit falsification of macroevolution is not possible.

    And so the goalposts move. The lying prick first asks for a falsification of microevolution:
    So……how would you go about falsifying microevolution??? I mean other than it never having been observed??? Lol!!!!
    and now he’s skipped to macro. Typical dishonesty from the lying prick.

    I agree which is why it is not science. IF you cannot observe it taking place then how can it be falsified? You just keep adding assumptions and pictures :)

    The lying prick has been pointed to evidence of observed speciation events – the macroevolution that he claims doesn’t happen and isn’t science. Of course he couldn’t be bothered to “wade through” the evidence so we know he’s dishonestly claiming that such evidence doesn’t exist.

    So how would science prove God exists? That would be step one. Start with a simpler task. We agree Socrates existed, but why? Science cannot prove he existed…..? Right? :)

    So, because the lying prick can’t prove Socrates existed using science he therefore can’t prove God exists using science. Thanks for the admission. Now we know the lying prick simply believes in God through faith alone i.e. (as DPK has noted several times) he pretends to know something he simply doesn’t know.

  105. on 04 Aug 2014 at 12:42 pm 105.the messenger said …

    664.TJ, I believe that GOD made life on earth and set the conditions of the earth so that some of his creatures would evolve into humans. After the creation of humans, GOD made a covenant with them. But they soon broke that covenant, after being tempted by Satan, and fell from grace. After some time GOD found a small tribe of Hebrews, lead by Abraham(the first Jew), and decided to use them to spread his teachings of love, humility, kindness, generosity, compassion and forgiveness to the world.

  106. on 04 Aug 2014 at 1:32 pm 106.Anonymous said …

    Prick: SO you admit falsification of macroevolution is not possible.

    NO!!! That’s incorrect. I said you could interpret the data, propose a hypothesis, and put it out there for peer review. Can you do it? You’ve agreed with any and all of the facts I’ve stated in earlier postings. What’s your interpretation?

    ID articles have been Peer reviewed and there are many scientist who believe

    I wonder if any of those scientists were named Steve? ;-) LOL!!!
    Look up “Project Steve”.

  107. on 04 Aug 2014 at 2:10 pm 107.freddies_dead said …

    705.the messenger said … (to TJ)

    664.TJ, I believe that GOD made life on earth and set the conditions of the earth so that some of his creatures would evolve into humans. After the creation of humans,

    So did humans evolve or were they created? Here you’ve made a claim to both scenarios.

    GOD made a covenant with them. But they soon broke that covenant, after being tempted by Satan, and fell from grace. After some time GOD found a small tribe of Hebrews, lead by Abraham(the first Jew), and decided to use them to spread his teachings of love, humility, kindness, generosity, compassion and forgiveness to the world.

    Why did God create Satan? Why does He allow Satan to continue existing? Why did He allow Satan into the garden of Eden? Why did He not warn Adam and Eve about Satan’s lies? Why did He put the tree of knowledge of good and evil in the garden in the first place? Why not protect it so Adam and Eve couldn’t pick or eat the fruit?

    God supposedly hates sin so much but created it anyway. According to the claims made in the Bible all sin/evil is a direct result of God’s plan for His own glory. What kind of all powerful deity needs to have billions suffer (the majority of them for all eternity) to glorify Himself? If it was anything other than a book of myths that ignores reality it would be terrifying to think such a contemptible idiot was supposedly in charge.

  108. on 04 Aug 2014 at 5:24 pm 108.The Prickly Science Guy said …

    “NO!!! That’s incorrect. I said you could interpret the data, propose a hypothesis, and put it out there for peer review”

    No, a competing theory is not necessary to falsify existing work. However there are other theories out there. The questions remains, how is ToE falsified? You can’t observe it????? That is a key to falsification.

    However, so how would this prove macroevolution? I already stated the method(s) the Creator used has not yet been identified by science but will be eventually.

    ID proponents do have some outstanding work but you would never leave your religion yo review the work……and they ate smart Anony-Freddie……lol!!

    You really should stick to one moniker. You look really stupid.!

  109. on 04 Aug 2014 at 5:49 pm 109.Anonymous said …

    Prick: “You really should stick to one moniker. You look really stupid.!”

    I am the REAL anonymous. Accept no imitations, Wooten…errr I mean Horatio, little “a”…. whatever. Sorry to disappoint but Freddie is someone else. Don’t know the fellow. You’re the only one outed as a sock puppeteer.

    Anon: “I said you could interpret the data, propose a hypothesis, and put it out there for peer review”
    Prick: “No, a competing theory is not necessary to falsify existing work. However there are other theories out there.”

    Ummmm…. I believe if your reasoning is strong and persuasive, then the new way of thinking supplants the old way. Much like what Darwin did when he initially suggested that “fixed species” does NOT square with the evidence. If you want to validate your god, science may not be the best approach…just sayin’.

    Prick: The questions remains, how is ToE falsified? You can’t observe it????? That is a key to falsification.
    However, so how would this prove macroevolution?

    If you find enough smoking guns and ALL of the different branches of science are on your side, I’d say it has a pretty decent chance of being verified. Of course, you, Prick, the wacky fringe marginalized elements, will continue to whine and bitch about how god isn’t included. Maybe science isn’t your strong suite. But you asked: How can it be falsified? How about with a coherent analysis of the facts. Something that cuts across all religious and secular camps. At this moment in time, only ToE accomplishes this; witness your christian evolutionists researching evolution beside their secular brothers. Amen!! ;-)

  110. on 04 Aug 2014 at 8:38 pm 110.The Prickly Science Guy said …

    “fixed species” does NOT square with the evidence”

    Um, so you have witnessed macro? Lets see Freddie. Lol!!! Plenty of evidence for micro but that will not support macro until you can prove it. Sorry, you fail.

    ” say it has a pretty decent chance of being verified.

    That would be what Freddie?

    “you asked: How can it be falsified? How about with a coherent analysis of the facts”

    Absolutely, as a man of science I follow where the facts lead. They do not lead from lifeless soup, to life and then all life springing from the primordial soup monster…lol!!! No facts support that silly!

    “only ToE accomplishes this”

    Not even close. But unlike you I don’t believe craziness just because others do…:)

    I am a man of science. Bring facts, observations, testing to the table nan! Lol!!!
    Love ya! Freddie..er…I mean mouse:)

  111. on 04 Aug 2014 at 8:56 pm 111.Anonymous said …

    Anon:”“fixed species” does NOT square with the evidence””

    Prick: “Um, so you have witnessed macro?”

    Yes. But I forgot my camera. My bad.

    Prick… “all life springing from the primordial soup monster…lol!!! No facts support that silly!”

    Everyone knows that when Abiogenesis is 100% proven it will strengthen your faith in a god. WOW!!!

    I don’t believe craziness just because others do…:)

    You’re in a class of your own – NOBODY does crazy like you do.

  112. on 04 Aug 2014 at 11:50 pm 112.TJ said …

    To freddies_dead,

    Why did God create Satan?

    Why does He allow Satan to continue existing?

    Why did He allow Satan into the garden of Eden?

    Why did He not warn Adam and Eve about Satan’s lies?

    Why did He put the tree of knowledge of good and evil in the garden in the first place?

    Why not protect it so Adam and Eve couldn’t pick or eat the fruit?

    Would you like my rational based on a bias belief in a literal interpretation of what the bible states regarding these questions?

  113. on 05 Aug 2014 at 2:26 am 113.A The Prickly Science Guy said …

    “NOBODY does crazy like you do.”

    LOL!!!!!! I know Freddie er, ah….Mouse! Imagine a person who actually believes in a God and believes this God has the ability to create a universe!!

    revolutionary!

    Incredible!

    LOL!!!!!!!!

    Luv ya Freddie Mouse!

  114. on 05 Aug 2014 at 2:26 am 114.alex said …

    “Would you like my rational based on a bias belief…”

    go ahead motherfucker. i’m sure you’ll cut it from the same god inspired cloth. somewhere along the bullshit lines of:

    “It’s ok to be scared. A fear of God, is a rational fear.”.

    “My young earth is derived from a literal reading of the biblical text.”

    “Grow the fuck up”

    your words, motherfucker. go ahead and speak up righteous, bitch.

    while you’re at it, why not the literal stoning of adulterers or sunday workers? it’s only literal when you say it, don’t it?

    dumbass.

  115. on 05 Aug 2014 at 9:17 am 115.freddies_dead said …

    712.TJ said …

    To freddies_dead,

    Why did God create Satan?

    Why does He allow Satan to continue existing?

    Why did He allow Satan into the garden of Eden?

    Why did He not warn Adam and Eve about Satan’s lies?

    Why did He put the tree of knowledge of good and evil in the garden in the first place?

    Why not protect it so Adam and Eve couldn’t pick or eat the fruit?

    Would you like my rational based on a bias belief in a literal interpretation of what the bible states regarding these questions?

    Go ahead. I’d love to see someone try to reconcile the idea of a God that so hates sin He’s willing to torture people for all eternity for it, only for that very same God to go ahead and imbue His glorious creation with sin anyway. I suspect any rationale for that will not include much rationality.

  116. on 06 Aug 2014 at 12:10 am 116.Anonymous said …

    Anon: “NOBODY does crazy like you do.”

    Prick: “LOL!!!!!! I know”

    That’s a good first step, realizing it. And when the “Repent -The end is near” sandwich boards become a little heavy, take a break and get some help.

  117. on 06 Aug 2014 at 12:35 am 117.alex said …

    “….reconcile the idea of a God…”

    hell, i just want to know how these motherfucking theists would know when the real God, Allah were to show up. would they just know? would you ask him to:

    1. summon da bears?
    2. wilt the damn tree?
    3. stop the sun?
    4. feed the multitudes?

    help me out theists. what would you ask Allah? or would you just realize your folly when your flesh melts away from your bones as your scream lika motherfucker, bitch. and then you get to do it all over again for all of eternity. and i was told, you’ll never get used to it because unlike your bullshit god, allah the real deal, is not merciful.

    allah’s a bad motherfu… watch your mouth.

  118. on 06 Aug 2014 at 12:37 am 118.A The Prickly Science Guy said …

    ” take a break and get some help”

    ROTFL!!!!!!!

    Nah, I don’t want to be another alex/Freddie-Mouse in the atheist cult!! We have enough of you hatin out there everyday as it is. Then I would need to protest Christmas, steal baby Jesus from mangers and become ill every time I saw lines intersect one another.

    Nah, I’m to busy for all that. Hold down the fort for Freddie Mouse, aight? Now go post as Freddie again…..

    LOL!!!!

  119. on 06 Aug 2014 at 1:39 am 119.alex said …

    “..I don’t want to be another alex/Freddie-Mouse..”

    nope. you’d rather be martin, science guy, biff, xenon, little ‘A’, Sweetness, boz, RL Wooten, ‘Everyone’. dumb motherfucker. congrats martin1 i’m martin! a dipshit talking to himself. and it’s all here: http://goo.gl/UYo1uS

    what atheist cult? making up more shit? oh, yeah. didn’t you blurt out “China is selling fetuses as a delicacy”. don’t go away mad, just….

    bitch, motherfucker.

  120. on 07 Aug 2014 at 2:33 pm 120.freddies_dead said …

    719.alex said …

    what atheist cult?

    You know. The one that exists like his God does … in his imagination.

  121. on 11 Aug 2014 at 12:17 am 121.the messenger said …

    727.freddies_dead, I will answer all of your questions.

    “So did humans evolve or were they created? Here you’ve made a claim to both scenarios.”

    The flesh and blood bodies of humans evolved, but GOD created the human soul. The flesh and blood is only a vessel in which a human soul resides until it is time for the soul to leave when the flesh and blood dies.

    “Why did God create Satan? Why does He allow Satan to continue existing? Why did He allow Satan into the garden of Eden? Why did He not warn Adam and Eve about Satan’s lies?”

    He created Satan and allowed him to do all of those things so that humanity would see the evil of sin and would learn to oppose it and overcome Satan and his sinful ways, and would thus become better and stronger willed people.

    “God supposedly hates sin so much but created it anyway”

    GOD did not create sin. Sin is not a physical thing, it is a crime against love and kindness and the rest of GOD’s teachings. It is also very painful evil that infects our souls.

    “According to the claims made in the Bible all sin/evil is a direct result of God’s plan for His own glory.”

    Where does it say that? His plan is not for his glory, but for the betterment of mankind. Everything that GOD does is directed to the purpose of helping us become kind and loving people with the will power to overcome evil.

    “What kind of all powerful deity needs to have billions suffer (the majority of them for all eternity) to glorify Himself? If it was anything other than a book of myths that ignores reality it would be terrifying to think such a contemptible idiot was supposedly in charge.”

    First of all, GOD is trying to glorify love. Love is a part of all of us, therefore he is trying to glorify everyone. He does not need the suffering, but we need it in order to become better like in Romans 5:3-5.

  122. on 11 Aug 2014 at 12:24 am 122.the messenger said …

    727.freddies_dead, GOD created Satan, and Satan committed the first sin.

    GOD did not make sin, he made the beings (humans and Satan) that do sin.

  123. on 11 Aug 2014 at 1:46 am 123.the messenger said …

    727.freddies_dead, also, we have been over this already, hell is not a forever punishment.

  124. on 11 Aug 2014 at 1:59 am 124.the messenger said …

    393.DPK, yes, we are meant to have some confusion in order to become familiar with certain kinds of evil so that we will learn to oppose them.

  125. on 11 Aug 2014 at 2:34 am 125.alex said …

    the messenger said…

    reality check, mister bitch motherfucker.

    in lieu of punishment, should a rapist be allowed to marry their virgin victim?

    your credibility is shit, you asshole. no? here’s the proof, ya bitchass: http://goo.gl/7fbnA4

  126. on 11 Aug 2014 at 10:41 am 126.freddies_dead said …

    721.the messenger said …

    727.freddies_dead, I will answer all of your questions.

    This should be fun…

    “So did humans evolve or were they created? Here you’ve made a claim to both scenarios.”

    The flesh and blood bodies of humans evolved, but GOD created the human soul. The flesh and blood is only a vessel in which a human soul resides until it is time for the soul to leave when the flesh and blood dies.

    So, what? God didn’t create humans? I know you’re trying to hedge your bets here but it’s not working. Plus you’ll have evidence that the soul exists independently of the human body, yes? What does it look like? How does it survive? Can it sense anything? If so, how? How can we distinguish between this soul and something you may merely be imagining?

    “Why did God create Satan? Why does He allow Satan to continue existing? Why did He allow Satan into the garden of Eden? Why did He not warn Adam and Eve about Satan’s lies?”

    He created Satan and allowed him to do all of those things so that humanity would see the evil of sin and would learn to oppose it and overcome Satan and his sinful ways, and would thus become better and stronger willed people.

    And yet sin continues unabated. According to your Bible God not only knew this would happen, He planned for it to happen – for nothing happens without the will of God. It makes no sense to claim He did it so we’d see and learn to oppose sin when He knew we’d do the opposite i.e. embrace sin.

    “God supposedly hates sin so much but created it anyway”

    GOD did not create sin.

    So there are things that exist that God did not create? Then why do we need your God?

    Sin is not a physical thing, it is a crime against love and kindness and the rest of GOD’s teachings.

    Like forcing rape victims to marry their attackers you mean? Although I’m not seeing any love and kindness in that teaching.

    It is also very painful evil that infects our souls.

    Speak for yourself.

    “According to the claims made in the Bible all sin/evil is a direct result of God’s plan for His own glory.”

    Where does it say that?

    In your Bible.
    “Bring my sons from afar and my daughters from the end of the earth, every one who is called by my name, whom I created for my glory. (Isaiah 43:6-7)”

    If we’re created for His glory and sin exists because of that, then sin/evil is a direct result of that creation i.e. is a direct result of God’s plan for His own glory.

    His plan is not for his glory, but for the betterment of mankind. Everything that GOD does is directed to the purpose of helping us become kind and loving people with the will power to overcome evil.

    Nope. It’s for His own glory and if He really wanted us to overcome evil He’d have made us capable of doing so instead of planning it so that we’d all fall short. Of course that would mean there was no need for Jesus to come and save everyone but you’re not really bothered about the story making sense, you just want it to sound nice.

    “What kind of all powerful deity needs to have billions suffer (the majority of them for all eternity) to glorify Himself? If it was anything other than a book of myths that ignores reality it would be terrifying to think such a contemptible idiot was supposedly in charge.”

    First of all, GOD is trying to glorify love.

    God is trying to glorify Himself … and seemingly doing a piss awful job of it. So much for his omnipotence.

    Love is a part of all of us, therefore he is trying to glorify everyone. He does not need the suffering, but we need it in order to become better like in Romans 5:3-5.

    How does being tortured for all eternity help anyone become better? It certainly doesn’t help the one suffering and the threat of it doesn’t stop anyone else from sinning. It’s pointless and cruel. Good job your God is only imaginary because, if it did exist, it sure as Hell wouldn’t be worth worshipping.

  127. on 11 Aug 2014 at 10:42 am 127.freddies_dead said …

    722.the messenger said …

    727.freddies_dead, GOD created Satan, and Satan committed the first sin.

    GOD did not make sin, he made the beings (humans and Satan) that do sin.

    You really don’t understand cause and effect, do you?

  128. on 11 Aug 2014 at 10:43 am 128.freddies_dead said …

    23.the messenger said …

    727.freddies_dead, also, we have been over this already, hell is not a forever punishment.

    Yes, we have been over it, your Bible disagrees with you. So why should I take your interpretation over the supposedly divinely inspired word of your God?

  129. on 11 Aug 2014 at 8:31 pm 129.The Prickly Science Guy said …

    You have just enjoyed another hour of The Freddie, ER, uh, Anoumouse Bible hour. Turn in next week when our exalted one will tackle which came first the chicken or the egg…

    lol!!!!!!!

  130. on 11 Aug 2014 at 8:34 pm 130.the messenger said …

    726.freddies_dead, yes GOD created the human soul(the part that lives forever), but he formed the human flesh and blood bodies through the process of evolution.

    True, I do not know the entire anatomy or physiology of a soul. I do know(based on the accounts recorded in this book “heaven is for real”) that in heaven a human soul looks like a young version of the person’s flesh and blood body, and that the soul can see and hear certain things in both heaven and on earth.

    To say that “GOD created sin” is like saying GOD created a log cabin. GOD created the trees and the mud to make the walls of the cabin, but he didn’t take those things and build the cabin himself. Humans did that. GOD created the beings that had the right things to make sin, and the potential to make sin, but he did not go in a force humans to make sin, they did that on their own. Yes, he knew that they would sin, because he knows everything about their personality and he knew that they were weak willed and would sin, he just didn’t stop us.

    GOD let sin be made in order for us to become exposed to evil and so that we would learn to oppose it and become better people.

    GOD does not force rape victims to marry the men that raped them. He forces the rapists to bind themselves to the women that they raped, and serve them serve them as punishment. It is a way to punish the rapists.

  131. on 11 Aug 2014 at 8:43 pm 131.the messenger said …

    726.freddies_dead, GOD is the spirit of love. He is trying to glorify love.

    If he simply wanted to glorify himself, he would have made minions that bow to him every moment of every day.

    Instead, he held our sins on he=is back and suffered for us. EVERYTHING THAT HE DOES IS FOR OUR BENIFFET.

    Every time we show love to some one and do good kind things for others we are overcoming evil. Every time we forgive someone we overcome evil. We are capable of overcoming evil. Yes, we often fall short, but we learn from those wrong actions and we improve and take one more step towards overcoming evil entirely.

  132. on 11 Aug 2014 at 8:48 pm 132.the messenger said …

    748.freddies_dead, i disproved everyone of your “hell is forever” claims by presenting numerous amounts of text evidence.

    If you do not believe me, read psalm 107.

  133. on 12 Aug 2014 at 1:23 am 133.TJ said …

    To the messenger and anyone interested in the Satan issue…

    ———————————————–
    psalm 107 is a reflection of the historical bringing together of the lost/scattered tribes of Israel. It illustrates that despite their rebellious nature, when at their witts-end, they turn to God. And He consistently shows mercy and love in accordance with his promise to do so.

    ————————————————-
    messenger:”If he simply wanted to glorify himself, he would have made minions that bow to him every moment of every day.”

    Revelation 4:8 “Each of the four living creatures had six wings and was covered with eyes all around, even under its wings. Day and night they never stop saying: “‘Holy, holy, holy is the Lord God Almighty,’ who was, and is, and is to come.””
    ———————————————-

    Hell was designed originally for Satan and his demons (Matthew 25:41; Revelation 20:10).

    Hell will also punish the sin of those who reject Christ (Matthew 13:41,50; Revelation 20:11-15; 21:8).

    “It is appointed unto men once to die and after that the judgment” (Hebrews 9:27).

    Revelation 14:11 “the smoke of their torment goes up forever and ever and they have no rest day and night”

    Isaiah 65:17 “”See, I will create new heavens and a new earth. The former things will not be remembered, nor will they come to mind.”

    Only Hell remains for it’s original purpose. The current earth and heavens will be wiped away and a new creation will replace them.

    “No eye has seen, no ear has heard, no mind has conceived what God has prepared for those who love him.” (1 Corinthians 2:9).

    How does Satan fit with God’s plan?

    We can see that God had pre-planned a place for Satan and his angels. If this was planned, then what is Satan’s purpose and how does it relate to God plan?

    What is God’s plan?

    Before all acts of creation God declares that he is alone. He decides that he should not be alone and that he should create a people for himself. For friendship, fellowship and companionship. This is his plan from the beginning.

    He declares to himself that to have true friendship, fellowship and companionship with his people, they must be allowed the choice to reject him in order for their friendship, fellowship and companionship to have real true value. It is only through independent choice obtained via free will that a true choice can be made. For a choice to exist, there needs to be an alternative to choose.

    God declarers that he is truth and that in him can be found no lie. Lucifer/Satan is the created being used to present an alternative choice. This is his created purpose. He is called the “Adversary”.

    The very first act of creation by the formless God is to create an image for himself. This image God creates for himself is the image we are based on. This is also known as the “word”. It is through the “word” that all things are created. John 1:1 . Colossians 1:16

    Satan/Lucifer is created by the “word”. Isaiah 14:12-17 V15: Thou wast perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till iniquity was found in thee.

    We are told that Lucifer the Angel of light was so perfect that he himself considered himself a substitute an alternative an “Adversary” to the “word”. Ezekiel 28:12-14 Ezekiel 28:17 Ezekiel 28:6 Isaiah 14:12-14

    Why not protect it so Adam and Eve couldn’t pick or eat the fruit?
    Satan obtains Gods permission to temp Adam and Eve. God grants permission to Satan, but as to not present himself as an Angel of light, so that Adam and Eve might think he came to represent God. But instead as an “Adversary” to Gods instructions. Instructions which Adam and Eve not only knew, but where able to recall.
    If God prevented Adam and Eve from being presented with this choice of an alternative, then it would be in direct contrast to his plan.

    Let’s look again at Gods plan. God wants a people who choose to be his people. God is hardly comparable to man. But the “word”, the first-born of creation. “Jesus” the “word”, manifested in the flesh, the only begotten son of God. Who sacrificed himself, rose from the dead and returned to the father and lives again. Says “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me”

    John 1:12 “But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name, 13who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.”

    God tells us that we too can return to the father in death and relive as Jesus does through faith in the grace of God. Also that a new body of perfection will given to us and a new heaven and earth will be created. We will then be as “Jesus”, begotten of the father and a people unto God by choice of our own free will. In accordance with his plan.

    When Jesus stated “For verily I say unto you, That whosoever shall say unto this mountain, Be thou removed, and be thou cast into the sea; and shall not doubt in his heart, but shall believe that those things which he saith shall come to pass; he shall have whatsoever he saith.” Mark 11:23

    Does Jesus refer to a future state and the abilities of those who have faith?

    He also said… “I have spoken to you of earthly things and you do not believe; how then will you believe if I speak of heavenly things?”

    Satan and his angels have been cast to earth. They continue to present alternatives to the truth. Each on of us is presented with a choice, “God as Truth” or any alternative.

    It is our will to reject God and go with alternatives that are reflected through all the suffering and war we see now and throughout the ages. For every crime, injustice and inflicted suffering can be shown to originate from the ignoring of one or more of the basic Ten commandments, seven of which deal directly with how we should honour one another.

  134. on 12 Aug 2014 at 2:23 am 134.DPK said …

    Hard to believe in this day and age, that otherwise normal, educated and intelligent people actually believe such ridiculous nonsense.

  135. on 12 Aug 2014 at 11:44 am 135.alex said …

    737.TJ said …

    what a dumb motherfucker. you ain’t got shit, so you resort to the old standby, eh. fuck up the blog with your blather. don’t worry asshole, motherfucker. you’d get the same treatment if you’re one of them mooslim motherfuckers spouting off the koran shit.

    dumbass.

  136. on 12 Aug 2014 at 2:16 pm 136.freddies_dead said …

    730.the messenger said …

    726.freddies_dead, yes GOD created the human soul(the part that lives forever), but he formed the human flesh and blood bodies through the process of evolution.

    Still hedging your bets I see. So your God didn’t form Adam from the dust of the Earth as your Bible claims? Is this another one of those bits where you’ve decided that your Bible doesn’t actually mean what it says?

    True, I do not know the entire anatomy or physiology of a soul.

    Which bits do you know about? And how do you know about them? Have you ever seen one?

    I do know(based on the accounts recorded in this book “heaven is for real”) that in heaven a human soul looks like a young version of the person’s flesh and blood body, and that the soul can see and hear certain things in both heaven and on earth.

    Holy fuck. You know based on the alleged NDE of a 4 year old, interpreted by his pastor father? Does Jesus actually ride a rainbow coloured horse then?

    To say that “GOD created sin” is like saying GOD created a log cabin.

    I see the concept of causality still seems to be eluding you.

    GOD created the trees and the mud to make the walls of the cabin, but he didn’t take those things and build the cabin himself. Humans did that. GOD created the beings that had the right things to make sin, and the potential to make sin, but he did not go in a force humans to make sin, they did that on their own. Yes, he knew that they would sin, because he knows everything about their personality and he knew that they were weak willed and would sin, he just didn’t stop us.

    Ah, the old “free will” canard. Please explain how free will can possibly exist given the claim that God is omniscient and has a plan? We’ve been trying to get one of you theists to show how it’s possible to do something … anything … other than what your God has planned will happen. If God knows that I will do X because He planned it, is there any way in which I can actually do Y instead?

    GOD let sin be made in order for us to become exposed to evil and so that we would learn to oppose it and become better people.

    It didn’t work. Your God failed. It’s almost as if He doesn’t exist.

    GOD does not force rape victims to marry the men that raped them. He forces the rapists to bind themselves to the women that they raped, and serve them serve them as punishment. It is a way to punish the rapists.

    Hey look! It’s Humpty Dumpty! “When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.”

  137. on 12 Aug 2014 at 2:20 pm 137.freddies_dead said …

    731.the messenger said …

    726.freddies_dead, GOD is the spirit of love. He is trying to glorify love.

    By torturing people for eternity and forcing rape victims to marry their attackers? Maybe it’s the random genocides which glorify love? Or the ordering of stonings for loving someone of the same sex/being a woman and getting raped but not shouting loud enough about it/failing to honour thy mother and father etc…? Torturing and killing a supposedly perfect human because He screwed up when He created all the other humans perhaps? Which of those “glorify love” exactly?

    If he simply wanted to glorify himself, he would have made minions that bow to him every moment of every day.

    It would beat torturing people for all eternity for simply doing exactly as He planned for them to do.

    Instead, he held our sins on he=is back and suffered for us.

    How does an omnipotent being ‘suffer’ exactly? Is it the long weekend in Hell perhaps? How do you hurt a perfect being? By definition they can’t have any weaknesses.

    EVERYTHING THAT HE DOES IS FOR OUR BENIFFET.

    Then why aren’t we benefitting? Why do thousands die of starvation every day? Why are there still diseases like cancer, AIDS and ebola? Just how do they benefit us? Why are there still wars? What’s with the earthquakes, hurricanes and floods?

    Every time we show love to some one and do good kind things for others we are overcoming evil. Every time we forgive someone we overcome evil. We are capable of overcoming evil. Yes, we often fall short, but we learn from those wrong actions and we improve and take one more step towards overcoming evil entirely.

    Again you speak like we have some sort of say in this. So we’re back to you demonstrating that free will exists in light of an omniscient being with a plan. If God knows that I will do X, is there any situation in which I can actually do Y?

  138. on 12 Aug 2014 at 2:38 pm 138.freddies_dead said …

    732.the messenger said …

    748.freddies_dead, i disproved everyone of your “hell is forever” claims by presenting numerous amounts of text evidence.

    No, you haven’t. You just did your best Humpty Dumpty impression and claimed words mean what you say they mean. You totally failed to disprove all the verses that talk about everlasting suffering.

    If you do not believe me, read psalm 107.

    Read it. I’m not seeing a single thing about rescuing people from Hell or your little pet theory that only the bad parts of people go to Hell. Quite simply you have nothing that disproves the likes of 2 Thessalonians 1 8:9 “In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ: Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power;”.

  139. on 12 Aug 2014 at 5:52 pm 139.The Prickly Science Guy said …

    You have just enjoyed another hour of The Freddie, ER, uh, Anoumouse Bible hour. Turn in next week when our exalted one will tackle Crest or Colgate? Do teeth know the difference?

    lol!!!!!!!

  140. on 13 Aug 2014 at 12:23 am 140.TJ said …

    To The Prickly Science Guy,

    Do you disagree with freddies_dead’s analysis?

    He makes a clear point, that is, if you remove the creation story from the bible you ultimately destroy all that follows. Without direct creation, man dies and suffers for multiple generations. Removing the “penalty of sin is death” concept. Ultimately removing the need of salvation from the last enemy, “death”.

    From here you need to make up all sorts of stories to support you original claim that the bible doesn’t say what it means.

    freddies_dead’s analysis parallels with what I’ve said of science theories being supported by theories which support even more theory. Where does it end?

    I’m still waiting for an other explanation of origins that can stand up to anything other than faith in a theory. My faith also is based on a theory that the bible is the recorded word of God.

    Only difference is, I lay claim to a spiritual confirmation from an ongoing contact with the holy spirit as the writers of the new testament claim to have experienced. Personal proof beyond doubt from a personal saviour. I never felt this way before my initial “overwhelming spiritual experience” earlier this year.

    If, this is hard to believe in this day and age, then so be it. I find it hard to believe many things too. Some of which, that, otherwise normal, educated and intelligent people actually believe such ridiculous theoretical nonsense based on interpretations derived from pre-conceived beliefs that an intelligent force/entity is not required for origins.

    The Prickly Science Guy, (“I am a man of science. Bring facts, observations, testing to the table nan! Lol!!!”)

    I’m still fuzzy on your origin stand point. Which group are you in…

    A. Goddidit
    B. God is imaginary
    c. I don’t know
    D. We currently cannot know because all we have are theories.

    ?

  141. on 13 Aug 2014 at 11:02 am 141.freddies_dead said …

    740.TJ said … (to A the lying prick)

    freddies_dead’s analysis parallels with what I’ve said of science theories being supported by theories which support even more theory. Where does it end?

    I’m still waiting for an other explanation of origins that can stand up to anything other than faith in a theory.

    Science continuously shows that supernatural explanations for natural phenomena simply aren’t necessary. The gaps in which theists have to cram their God are disappearing. So instead they seek to try and denigrate science with the whole “it’s just a theory” canard. Here we see TJ multiplying that to “it’s just a theory on top of another theory”. Scientific theories are well substantiated explanations for certain aspects of nature. There’s no need for religious faith here as the facts support the explanations. Where the facts aren’t known or aren’t yet sufficient to form a theory, as is the case with abiogenesis, science says it doesn’t know. It’s an honesty that theism cannot match. Instead theists continue to claim knowledge they cannot substantiate – as DPK has mentioned, they pretend to know things they simply don’t know.

    My faith also is based on a theory that the bible is the recorded word of God.

    The whole point of religious faith is it requires no evidence, it needs nothing to be “based on”. Hebrews 11:1 “Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.” but, for the sake of argument, just what is your theory? What facts support it? Do you believe those facts to be true independent of what anyone may think, feel, wish etc…? In which case how do you account for such objectivity from within your inherently subjective Christian worldview?

    Only difference is, I lay claim to a spiritual confirmation from an ongoing contact with the holy spirit as the writers of the new testament claim to have experienced. Personal proof beyond doubt from a personal saviour. I never felt this way before my initial “overwhelming spiritual experience” earlier this year.

    And what objective evidence do you have for this “spiritual confirmation”? What facts support it? How can we distinguish between your “overwhelming spiritual experience” and something you may simply be imagining?

    If, this is hard to believe in this day and age, then so be it. I find it hard to believe many things too. Some of which, that, otherwise normal, educated and intelligent people actually believe such ridiculous theoretical nonsense based on interpretations derived from pre-conceived beliefs that an intelligent force/entity is not required for origins.

    And back to the “it’s just a theory” nonsense, which is irrelevant when there is no real theory surrounding abiogenesis (the theory of evolution only picks up once there is life). The sole reason that your “intelligent force/entity” isn’t taken into account is because there’s no evidence that one actually exists and needs to be taken into account.

  142. on 13 Aug 2014 at 3:26 pm 142.The Prickly Science Guy said …

    “Science continuously shows that supernatural explanations for natural phenomena simply aren’t necessary.”

    lol!!!!!!

    Um, actually is does no such thing. What does that even mean? So silly!

    Lets look at just a few science has zero explanation for in this…….”natural” realm

    1. High information coding without intelligence
    2. Life from nonlife.
    3. Where is this Oort cloud? Lol!!!!

    Oh and just because science has understanding of a process does nor eliminate God! Lol!!!!! We all know God put processes in place silly Freddie the mouse!!

    lol!!!!

  143. on 13 Aug 2014 at 3:36 pm 143.TJ said …

    to freddies_dead…

    And what objective evidence do you have for this “spiritual confirmation”? What facts support it? How can we distinguish between your “overwhelming spiritual experience” and something you may simply be imagining?

    Don’t take my word, don’t even take the word of countless others from all walks of life and countries for the last 2000 years. Instead do your own experiment, you seem to have a grasp of the literalness that the bible demands.

    Read what Jesus says, interpretate for yourself what is required for salvation. Then seek the Lord with an honest heart and a curious mind. That is all I did.

  144. on 13 Aug 2014 at 4:31 pm 144.freddies_dead said …

    742.A the lying prick posting as The Prickly Science Guy said …

    “Science continuously shows that supernatural explanations for natural phenomena simply aren’t necessary.”

    lol!!!!!!

    Um, actually is does no such thing.

    Actually it does. Almost every process once thought to be the purview of deities – from sunrises to thunder and lightning to modern biodiversity – has been shown to actually be a result of natural processes.

    What does that even mean? So silly!

    So you don’t know what I meant but denied it all the same? Yes, that is silly of you.

    Lets look at just a few science has zero explanation for in this…….”natural” realm

    As I never claimed science has all the answers, making a list of what it doesn’t yet know is utterly pointless.

    1. High information coding without intelligence

    Define information in this context. Also define what you mean by “high information”. Unless we know what you mean we can’t discern whether there’s a natural explanation for it. However, if you have evidence of this intelligence, why don’t you just present that instead? Simply showing that there’s an intelligence responsible for your “high information coding” would sweep away any objections.

    2. Life from nonlife.

    As I’ve pointed out time and again science doesn’t claim to know how this happened yet, so if you have evidence demonstrating it was done supernaturally you’re welcome to present it any time you’re willing. Come on, you could easily get yourself a Nobel prize for conclusively showing how life came about.

    3. Where is this Oort cloud? Lol!!!!

    Why don’t you try asking an astronomer?

    Oh and just because science has understanding of a process does nor eliminate God! Lol!!!!!

    Where did I claim it did?

    We all know God put processes in place silly Freddie the mouse!!

    lol!!!!

    On the contrary, I know no such thing.

    Your claim constitutes a performative contradiction. Knowledge requires objective truth which is not possible in a theistic worldview premised on the metaphysical primacy of consciousness.

  145. on 13 Aug 2014 at 5:37 pm 145.The Prickly Science Guy said …

    “As I never claimed science has all the answers,”

    Just as I said, it cannot disprove the supernatural realm proving you wrong…….again and my questions still unanswered, well for you.

    “On the contrary, I know no such thing”

    Added to the list of things you do not know. Check….lol!!!

    “Why don’t you try asking an astronomer”

    I have, lol!!!!! Its only theoretical BUT it must exist silly!

  146. on 13 Aug 2014 at 11:15 pm 146.the messenger said …

    Well said, 745.The Prickly Science Guy.

  147. on 13 Aug 2014 at 11:17 pm 147.the messenger said …

    733.TJ,
    “psalm 107 is a reflection of the historical bringing together of the lost/scattered tribes of Israel. It illustrates that despite their rebellious nature, when at their witts-end, they turn to God. And He consistently shows mercy and love in accordance with his promise to do so.”
    No were is pslam 107 does it say the words “Israel” or “tribe”. I see “psalm 107? as a prophecy of the lost sinners of the world and how they will eventually realize there wrong doings and will turn to GOD, and he will release them from hell and will welcome them into his kingdom. Revelation 3:20 even reveals that is anyone seeks GOD that they will be saved, also that verse does not exclude hell.
    When I spoke about “bowing minions” I was refering to humans. If he wanted us to be “bowing minions” then he would have made bowing minions INSTEAD OF US.
    Also, lucifer is not an agent of GOD. He was, but he became jealous of humanity and decieded that he would try to corupt humanity inorder to get payback. Basicly satin is just a bratty child that is throwing a tantrum. But this was all a part of GOD’s plan for humanity to become exposed to evil and then to eventually overcome it and become better people as a result.

    ,

  148. on 13 Aug 2014 at 11:24 pm 148.the messenger said …

    FRED, tell me, how did that four year old boy know that he had a sister that died in his mother’s womb, even though they never told him about it and did not mention it in front of him or his older sister(not the one that died in the womb?

    Was he a telapath, or did he really see her in heaven?

    I believe he saw her in heaven.

  149. on 14 Aug 2014 at 2:00 am 149.Anonymous said …

    tj asks:

    The Prickly Science Guy, (“I am a man of science. Bring facts, observations, testing to the table nan! Lol!!!”)
    I’m still fuzzy on your origin stand point. Which group are you in…
    A. Goddidit
    B. God is imaginary
    c. I don’t know
    D. We currently cannot know because all we have are theories.
    ?

    I’ll take this one. As near as I can tell, the Prick’s philosophy (for lack of a better term) ALWAYS eventually distills down to putting a god into the niches and recesses of science. Look up “god of the gaps”. Anything that is not completely understood and explained has a god attached.

    He has no problem with a billions of year old Earth, early life being of a relatively simple single celled nature, Humans appearing on Earth about .0003 billion years ago, and human/ape having 99% similar DNA. Of course, there are so many more facts that he agrees with that help to support the theory of evolution. But his interpretation of the data must absolutely involve a god. (BTW, Prick seems to understand how a bias can skew data). So, as I mentioned way up above in this thread, life is about compromise. When necessary, Prick abandons logic and reason to accept and keep his faith alive.

  150. on 14 Aug 2014 at 11:06 am 150.freddies_dead said …

    743.TJ said …

    to freddies_dead…

    And what objective evidence do you have for this “spiritual confirmation”? What facts support it? How can we distinguish between your “overwhelming spiritual experience” and something you may simply be imagining?

    Don’t take my word, don’t even take the word of countless others from all walks of life and countries for the last 2000 years.

    It’s a shame those countless others couldn’t come up with a single piece of objective evidence for the existence of their God(s), then I wouldn’t have to take anyone’s word for it.

    Instead do your own experiment, you seem to have a grasp of the literalness that the bible demands.

    Read what Jesus says, interpretate for yourself what is required for salvation. Then seek the Lord with an honest heart and a curious mind. That is all I did.

    Why do you think I (and others) haven’t already tried this? We can all imagine a God – after all that’s all we can do with this thought experiment of yours – but I don’t see how you go from there to knowing a God exists. Your words here seem to suggest it’s like a big game of hide and seek and if only I look long and hard enough I’ll find it. Why is your God hiding? Why isn’t there any objective evidence of its existence to encourage us in our search? This is all quite apart from the question of how – on the Christian worldview – I can do anything other than what your God has planned for me? i.e. it’s not down to me whether I’ll believe in your God, it’s whether your God planned for me to believe.

  151. on 14 Aug 2014 at 11:08 am 151.freddies_dead said …

    745.A the lying prick posting as The Prickly Science Guy said …

    “As I never claimed science has all the answers,”

    Just as I said, it cannot disprove the supernatural realm

    Where did you say that? All you did in your previous post was deny the validity of my claim that science keeps showing that supernatural explanations for natural phenomena aren’t necessary. Note you only denied it, you didn’t actually show it was incorrect. Also why would you say it when no-one has claimed that science can disprove the supernatural realm? This is nothing more than a red herring.

    proving you wrong…….again and my questions still unanswered, well for you.

    How can I be wrong when I never made the claim you say I did you moron?

    “On the contrary, I know no such thing”

    Added to the list of things you do not know. Check….lol!!!

    Which just proves your claim that “We all know God put processes in place …” is just utter bullshit, well done for conceding that point.

    “Why don’t you try asking an astronomer”

    I have, lol!!!!! Its only theoretical BUT it must exist silly!

    Well then, if you don’t agree why don’t you prove that astronomer wrong? Here’s another chance for you to substantiate your position. Let’s have your supernatural explanation for objects like long interval comets.

  152. on 14 Aug 2014 at 11:10 am 152.freddies_dead said …

    748.the messenger said …

    FRED, tell me, how did that four year old boy know that he had a sister that died in his mother’s womb, even though they never told him about it and did not mention it in front of him or his older sister(not the one that died in the womb?

    How do you know he didn’t overhear them talking about it between themselves? Are you saying small boys never listen to conversations they’re not supposed to? How do you know that he didn’t hear other members of the family discussing it? Hell, my mother in law suffered a miscarriage many years ago but she’s never told me about it or discussed it in front of me. I didn’t need to go to Heaven to find out about it though, instead my wife told me all about it. The whole point is that there are a number of every day, mundane possibilities for how he could have come to know of his miscarried sibling but you dismiss them – without any solid grounds – in favour of the supernatural.

    Was he a telapath, or did he really see her in heaven?

    Why does it have to be either of these extraordinary claims? Why should we throw out more mundane – and more likely – possibilities in favour of an explanation that requires extraordinary levels of evidence to support it? Do you have objective evidence that telepathy is real? How about Heaven? Do you have some objective evidence that Heaven actually exists?

    I believe he saw her in heaven.

    Why should I share your credulity in light of more likely answers?

  153. on 14 Aug 2014 at 6:34 pm 153.DPK said …

    or, the even more obvious explanation that his parents made the whole thing up in order to, uh, I don’t know, make a fortune selling books and movie rights?
    Do you think this is the first time the gullible and all too willing believers have been fleeced by people willing to take their money to tell them what they want to hear?
    I’ve got at least a dozen storefront “churches” fortunetellers, psychics, and assorted quacks within a 20 mile radius of me that are more then happy to do that for you?
    What about the “other” guy who supposedly died and went to heaven…. he came back and told us that there is “nothing to fear, there is NOTHING you can do wrong… you are loved.” Why shouldn’t we believe him that there is no hell, no required belief system or behavior, no requirement to worship… there is nothing we can do that is wrong…. I take it you don’t agree with him, right? Why not? Do you think he just imagined it, or made it up to sell some books, or do you think that he is right and you have it all wrong?

  154. on 14 Aug 2014 at 7:59 pm 154.The Prickly Science Guy said …

    “eventually distills down to putting a god into the niches and recesses of science”

    oh Freddie! Posting back to back with your multiple personalities is so lame….sigh!!!!

    But OK, uoi take this one! Lol!!!

    Now where do I put a God into a “niche or a “recess”?

    On the contrary, I point out the silliness of atheism. The silliness of highly complex information codes evolving from soup or life popping out on non-life! That is all silliness.

    Now if you believe pointing out that an i7 processor has a designer is slipping in a designer in the the “niches” and “recesses” of the modern day laptop, you are quite silly.

    only difference, information coding in creation is even more complex……you so silly Freddie and mouse…..:)

  155. on 14 Aug 2014 at 8:06 pm 155.The Prickly Science Guy said …

    “Note you only denied it, you didn’t actually show it was incorrect”

    Sure I did. It does not have the ability to disprove supernatural. No you are done!

    lol!!!!!!

  156. on 14 Aug 2014 at 10:34 pm 156.The Prickly Science Guy said …

    “Well then, if you don’t agree why don’t you prove that astronomer wrong?”

    lol!!!!!
    ROTFL!!!!

    Don’t agree? With what? One MUST exist? No its not a must, but to maintain other assumptions, well for atheist it is a must. For me, existing or not changes nothing.

    Which astronomer F&M? Now Freddie the Mouse, why don’t you just prove God wrong and settle the entire mater? Hmmm?

    When you are done, I’ll take care of the Oort cloud.

    lol!!!!!! Chow!

    Dippity Dew! You back!

  157. on 14 Aug 2014 at 11:20 pm 157.TJ said …

    To freddies_dead,

    “This is all quite apart from the question of how – on the Christian worldview – I can do anything other than what your God has planned for me? i.e. it’s not down to me whether I’ll believe in your God, it’s whether your God planned for me to believe.”

    The bible clearly states that you, me and everybody else is created with “Free self determining Will”. That we are responsible for our acts.

    Where does this idea of a micro planning God idea that you so cling to, come from? As has been stated here, an “All planning God” and free will cannot co-exist. Why would a God judge people based on what he planned them to do. This logic is inconsistent with the bible itself. You know it, I know it.

    I guess it does describe an imaginary God. But it certainly does not mesh with the bible’s description of God.

    Just because a claimed religious group makes stupid claims does not make them any less fallible than anyone else. As you guys continually point out, they all say different things. So go to the source and see for yourself was my suggestion. Self determine, the bible does not say anyone else can ensure your salvation, only through your own personal faith in Christ, not mine, not anybody else’s.

    “Why do you think I (and others) haven’t already tried this? We can all imagine a God – after all that’s all we can do with this thought experiment of yours – but I don’t see how you go from there to knowing a God exists.”

    It was to be a faith exercise. Not a thought exercise. By faith we are saved, not thoughts. I have perhaps given you too much credit for your knowledge of biblical scripture.

    Knowing of God comes with acceptance through faith. It is obvious you don’t yet have faith, this is evident by your statements throughout this blog. I claim that it took me years to get past my stubbornness to accept this. When I did though, my eyes where opened just like they describe in the New Testament. I was completely stunned and amazed by the instantness, simplicity and magnitude of it all.

    The journey from condemned to saved was long, hard and full of doubt, with faiths in many other worldly theories to assurer myself God didn’t exist. A willing stubborn resistance to God. But in the end I am here hopping that some of you may find what I have found for your own salvation.

    I would have none of you go to hell if it where up to me. But it is up to you and you alone. Alls I can do is testify my own experience to you. If this offends anyone than that’s just too bad.

  158. on 14 Aug 2014 at 11:32 pm 158.TJ said …

    … just so you know, I hated anyone who made claims like I do now. I though why them? “What are they doing different, lord knows I’ve tried.”

    But I swear to you on the name “Jesus Christ” that it is all about faith. Faith is Black and white, Hot or Cold, On or Off, True or False, you either have it or you don’t. And somehow the Holy Spirit knows the difference.

  159. on 15 Aug 2014 at 12:51 am 159.the messenger said …

    774.freddies_dead, they didn’t talk about it, because it was devastating. She just had one of her children die inside her!!!!!!!!! It was a subject that was highly depressing for both of them and I highly doubt that any of the family members would want to bring up those bad memories, so out of courtesy they most likely did not discuss it, and decided to focus on the children that they have now.

  160. on 15 Aug 2014 at 1:09 am 160.the messenger said …

    779.TJ, well said.

  161. on 15 Aug 2014 at 1:21 am 161.the messenger said …

    779.TJ, what you said in that comment reminds me of one of my favorite quotes.

    “Terrible. Unforgiving. That’s how I saw God. Punishing us in this life, and committing us to Purgatory after death. Sentencing sinners to burn in Hell for all eternity. But I was wrong. Those who see God as angry, do not see Him rightly, but look upon a curtain as if a dark storm cloud is being drawn across His face.

    If we truly believe that Christ IS our Savior, then we have a God of love! And to see God in faith is to look upon His friendly heart.

    So when the devil throws your sins in your face and declares that you deserve death and Hell, tell him this: “I admit that I deserve death and Hell, what of it? For I know one who suffered and made satisfaction in my behalf, His name is Jesus Christ, Son of God and where He is there I shall be also!””

    P.S., I am not supporting all of Father Martin’s writings, but only some of his.

    I oppose his hatred of the Jews, but I commend some of his views on faith.

  162. on 15 Aug 2014 at 12:41 pm 162.freddies_dead said …

    754.A the lying prick posting as The Prickly Science Guy said … (to Anonymous)

    “eventually distills down to putting a god into the niches and recesses of science”

    oh Freddie! Posting back to back with your multiple personalities is so lame….sigh!!!!

    Your projection is what is so lame here. You’re the only commenter on here who has been caught red handed posting as different people in order to deceive people e.g. when you posted as Martin while writing “Martin, Good one!”. People can check out some of alex’s posts for the link to the compilation of your lies, obsessions and absurdities.

  163. on 15 Aug 2014 at 12:42 pm 163.freddies_dead said …

    755.A the lying prick posting as The Prickly Science Guy said …

    “Note you only denied it, you didn’t actually show it was incorrect”

    Sure I did.

    This is an outright lie. Just what we’d expect from you.

    It does not have the ability to disprove supernatural. No you are done!

    A claim no-one here has made. You keep throwing out the red herring and I’ll keep throwing it right back at you.

    lol!!!!!!

    Indeed.

  164. on 15 Aug 2014 at 12:46 pm 164.freddies_dead said …

    756.The Prickly Science Guy said …

    “Well then, if you don’t agree why don’t you prove that astronomer wrong?”

    lol!!!!!
    ROTFL!!!!

    Simply admitting you can’t would have sufficed.

    Don’t agree? With what? One MUST exist?

    Where does science make the claim that the Oort cloud MUST exist?

    No its not a must, but to maintain other assumptions, well for atheist it is a must.

    This is simply not true. Atheism is not equal to astronomy. Just like atheism is not equal to science which is why your continued attempts to conflate atheism with science will always fail.
    My atheism wouldn’t be at all affected if it turns out that the hypothesised Oort cloud turned out not to exist. The only thing that’s going to affect my atheism is if someone can show that God exists. Care to try at any point?

    For me, existing or not changes nothing.

    Nor for the atheist. So basically you bought up the Oort cloud for nothing. Well done.

    Which astronomer F&M?

    How the fuck would I know which astronomer you’re claiming to have talked to? You didn’t give a name just claimed to have asked one. Are you admitting your claim was just another one of your lies?

    Now Freddie the Mouse, why don’t you just prove God wrong and settle the entire mater? Hmmm?

    Already done. In posts 470, 471, 539, 540, 589, 649 and 652 I gave the Objectivist position which shows creator Gods are impossible.

    When you are done, I’ll take care of the Oort cloud.

    You’re up.

  165. on 15 Aug 2014 at 12:51 pm 165.freddies_dead said …

    757.TJ said …

    To freddies_dead,

    “This is all quite apart from the question of how – on the Christian worldview – I can do anything other than what your God has planned for me? i.e. it’s not down to me whether I’ll believe in your God, it’s whether your God planned for me to believe.”

    The bible clearly states that you, me and everybody else is created with “Free self determining Will”. That we are responsible for our acts.

    I know what it states, however, that statement contradicts the Biblical claims that God is both omniscient and has a plan. As I asked earlier, is there a situation where God knows I will do X that I can actually do Y (where Y is something other than the X that God ‘knows’ I will do)? If the answer is yes then God’s omniscience is called into question (showing the Bible to be wrong). If the answer is no then the claim of free will is shown to be false (again the Bible is wrong).

    Where does this idea of a micro planning God idea that you so cling to, come from?

    It comes from the Bible. You yourself have agreed the Bible shows He has a plan. The Bible itself makes the claim that God knows all. If God knows everything then everything must be part of that plan.

    As has been stated here, an “All planning God” and free will cannot co-exist. Why would a God judge people based on what he planned them to do. This logic is inconsistent with the bible itself. You know it, I know it.

    I guess it does describe an imaginary God. But it certainly does not mesh with the bible’s description of God.

    In what way is it inconsistent? Are you saying that the Bible doesn’t say that God has a plan (despite your earlier admissions that it does)? Or are you saying that the Bible claims there are things that God does not know will happen? I fully understand that there are illogical and inconsistent claims in the Bible but this isn’t my problem.

    Just because a claimed religious group makes stupid claims does not make them any less fallible than anyone else. As you guys continually point out, they all say different things. So go to the source and see for yourself was my suggestion. Self determine, the bible does not say anyone else can ensure your salvation, only through your own personal faith in Christ, not mine, not anybody else’s.

    I am self-determining. I have no other choice and, as the only way I can “go to the source”, as you say, is to imagine one, I am confident that I’ve determined correctly.

    “Why do you think I (and others) haven’t already tried this? We can all imagine a God – after all that’s all we can do with this thought experiment of yours – but I don’t see how you go from there to knowing a God exists.”

    It was to be a faith exercise. Not a thought exercise.

    So it was to be a thoughtless exercise? In which case how was I supposed to do … well, anything?

    By faith we are saved, not thoughts. I have perhaps given you too much credit for your knowledge of biblical scripture.

    I think you’re giving far too much credit to your ‘faith’. I’m so far unable to distinguish anything you say I should have faith in from things that I can only imagine.

    Knowing of God comes with acceptance through faith.

    How? How can I actually know anything through faith? Faith is (according to the Bible – Hebrews 11:1) “the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen”? How does that equate to something factual? I could hope for a million pounds but there’s nothing there that means I know I’ll get it and how does what I can only imagine (things not seen) be called evidence?

    It is obvious you don’t yet have faith, this is evident by your statements throughout this blog.

    What’s wrong with preferring knowledge instead of faith? What’s so good about believing things without evidence?

    I claim that it took me years to get past my stubbornness to accept this. When I did though, my eyes where opened just like they describe in the New Testament. I was completely stunned and amazed by the instantness, simplicity and magnitude of it all.

    The journey from condemned to saved was long, hard and full of doubt, with faiths in many other worldly theories to assurer myself God didn’t exist. A willing stubborn resistance to God. But in the end I am here hopping that some of you may find what I have found for your own salvation.

    I would have none of you go to hell if it where up to me. But it is up to you and you alone.

    Alls I can do is testify my own experience to you. If this offends anyone than that’s just too bad.

    Your testimony does not offend me. Your choice to embrace the imaginary over reason is not my problem.

  166. on 15 Aug 2014 at 12:58 pm 166.freddies_dead said …

    759.the messenger said …

    774.freddies_dead, they didn’t talk about it, because it was devastating.

    And you know they never talked about it how? Devastating things happen, that doesn’t necessarily stop people discussing them.

    She just had one of her children die inside her!!!!!!!!!

    I’d like to point out that it didn’t ‘just’ happen. There had been at least 4 years between the miscarriage and the 4 year old’s alleged NDE. That’s at least 4 years during which the child could have learned of his mother’s miscarriage.

    It was a subject that was highly depressing for both of them and I highly doubt that any of the family members would want to bring up those bad memories, so out of courtesy they most likely did not discuss it, and decided to focus on the children that they have now.

    Who claimed the family members specifically bought it up in the presence of the woman or her husband? I postulated that they may have discussed it amongst themselves (as my wife and I did regarding her mother’s miscarriage) when the child was in a position to hear their discussions.

    You still haven’t given me any reason to ignore such mundane options in favour of the supernatural option. Your argument seems to boil down to “It was a tragic event that was never ever discussed by them or anyone else because … erm, because I say so because I like the Heaven version better. That’s your choice but I won’t be sharing in your credulity.

  167. on 15 Aug 2014 at 4:57 pm 167.A The Prickly Science Guy said …

    Freddie Mouse? Four posts in a row? Couldn’t you pull in Anonymouse to break the cycle? Oh well….nevertheless,,,,,

    “once thought to be the purview of deities – from sunrises to thunder and lightning to modern biodiversity”

    Identifying a process does not eliminate God. Never has……I never claimed there was a thunder God or a Lightning God…….You know some F&M? Next!

    “Sure I did.”

    No you didn’t……Next! lol!!!!

    “This is simply not true. Atheism is not equal to astronomy. Just like atheism is not equal to science”

    LOL!!!!! Agreed and where did you get that idea? Science is a pursuit of knowledge of existing processes. Those processes were put in place by God. The problem for the atheist is how to put processes in place that can create all the processes….LOL!!!!!!

    “So basically you bought up the Oort cloud for nothing.”

    LOL!!!, no but your obsession with it is funny. It is an example of…….careful here buddy……FAITH…..used in scientist. We have no proof of Oort actually existing but it is assumed to exist…..Faith :) Don’t obsess over it F&M. Its like macroevolution.

    save the funniest for last……..

    “Already done. In posts 470, 471, 539, 540, 589, 649 and 652 I gave the Objectivist position which shows creator Gods are impossible.”

    ROTFL!!!!! Tada The objectivist position. Let me summarize for our readers, k?

    1. For God to exist, F&M will understand How God exists
    2. F&M cannot understand or comprehend how a God can exist.
    3. Therefore God does not exist.

    ROTFL!!!!!!! Good one F&M! Next!

  168. on 15 Aug 2014 at 5:00 pm 168.A The Prickly Science Guy said …

    TJ,

    Don’t you realize what F&M is saying? The family is a bunch of liars! They taught the little boy to lie. Everyone who experiences God is a liar. Only atheist tell the truth!

    lol!!!!

  169. on 15 Aug 2014 at 11:56 pm 169.TJ said …

    To The Prickly Science Guy,

    freddies_dead is saying no such thing. He recognises that a couple of minutes of video do not tell the entire story. He recognises that people are motivated by all sorts of reasons to concoct stories for 15 min of fame. He approaches the topic with a healthy scepticism.

    Christ tells us to question everything, why should the claims of God and heaven be exempt from such query?

    Whilst all participants seem sincere in their claims, we cannot know for sure anything regarding their validity.

    Simply put, your belief is your will. His disbelief is his will… no extra input from God required for exercising free will… just as God planned.

  170. on 16 Aug 2014 at 2:10 am 170.DPK said …

    TJ.. Notice that the lying pick did not answer your question. This is his game. He will not discuss anything with any sort if intellectual honesty. He is a troll?

    As far as the claims, are we to accept the story of the 4 year old son of a baptist minister who never actually died or even arrested, who tells us that Jesus rides around heaven on a rainbow colored horse, everyone has wings, and that the only way you can get to heaven is by accepting Jesus as your savior… Just like his daddy preaches, or should we believe the 40 something Harvard educated doctor who said the spirits of heaven told him there is nothing to fear and nothing you can do wrong?
    They can’t both be right. So if you believe one, it means the other must be either delusional, or lying.
    Which is it?

    And TJ, you seem to be disavowing the commonly held assertion that god is omniscient. Is it your contention that god does not, in fact, know everything that will happen? If so, where do the prophecies in the bible come from?

  171. on 16 Aug 2014 at 3:49 pm 171.TJ said …

    To DPK,

    You are correct, I do not agree with the notions that the word “omniscient” promotes.

    In all of Gods prophecies he outlines his plan and speaks of the actions he will take to ensure his plan is fulfilled. God does not claim that anything will happen due to the perfect execution of a meticulously laid plan.

    In contrast he speaks of the actions he will take to achieve his plan according to his will. He asks us to have faith that his will is stronger than all others, that his will, will be the prevailing one. At least this is what pre-Christ/old testament readers of scripture would have been led to believe regarding prophesy of a saviour.

    New testament readers are told that the saviour is Jesus Christ and that the salvation part of the plan is complete. Time for all things that must come to pass and judgement lay ahead.

    We see references to fallen angels in Genesis, taking wives of the daughters of men. Mention of the Nephilim as well. Legends of old. Egyptians, Greeks, Mayans, Aztecs and many more ancient cultures speak volumes regarding Gods from the Heavens.

    God claims to have bound these fallen angels up in the earth, to be released at some point in the future. Again in revelations God speaks of actions to be taken, vials being poured upon the earth and a need for all things to come to pass.

    Weather God is talking to Adam and Eve, Noah, Abraham, Moses, the Israelites or to the Gentiles. He always speaks of the nature of the situation ahead, his plan for intervention and what he promises to do in order to achieve his will. He never says… “relax, it’s all good. I planned for this.”.

    Instead he says… “Fear not, for I am the Lord. Have faith in me.”

    Omniscient, to be all knowing, of past, present and future. From the smallest instances to the greatest events. This is the commonly held perception, but is it a true summery of what God claims?

    God claims to have perfect knowledge of all that is knowable. If something where to be proven to be un-knowable, then would this detract from God’s claim?

    God claims to be the author of all the natural laws that we do and don’t know about. He is the author of our DNA code. He has the understanding to create the situation that gives rise to our mind perception of our own self’s. Armed with all this knowledge would you expect him to make some pretty accurate predictions about our behaviours, actions, methods of rationalising and all possible long term future consequences?

    Would he lack the power, authority and knowledge base required to push his agenda ahead of all others?

    The only thing I would say that is pre-un-knowable to God with 100% absolute certainty are our choices made exercising free will. Is this not what the notion of free will implies?

    If God could be 100% certain of all our actions he would not need to wait to judge us. The mere mention of judgement dismisses the contention that we follow a pre-ordained micro plan.

  172. on 16 Aug 2014 at 7:58 pm 172.A The Prickly Science Guy said …

    “freddies_dead is saying no such thing.”

    Really? So his F&M’s quote:

    “There had been at least 4 years between the miscarriage and the 4 year old’s alleged NDE. That’s at least 4 years during which the child could have learned of his mother’s miscarriage.”

    Directly conflicts with what the father and the now teenage boy claim. I heard them being interviewed. So yes, Freddie is calling them a liar. That, TJ, is the definition of the word “liar”.

    Oh, and TJ, I have not read the book or seen the movie. I have no opinion on the claims so you can drop the “your belief is your will. His disbelief is his will”….whatever that is suppose to mean. Does that mean his belief could be my will?????

    Carry on TJ.

  173. on 17 Aug 2014 at 1:30 am 173.the messenger said …

    794.A The Prickly Science Guy, face it, deadfred is oblivious to the truth. I learned that from debating with him.

  174. on 17 Aug 2014 at 2:29 am 174.TJ said …

    To The Prickly Science Guy,

    THIS…
    “There had been at least 4 years between the miscarriage and the 4 year old’s alleged NDE. That’s at least 4 years during which the child could have learned of his mother’s miscarriage.””

    Is not the same as…
    “Don’t you realize what F&M is saying? The family is a bunch of liars! They taught the little boy to lie. Everyone who experiences God is a liar. Only atheist tell the truth!”

    You misrepresent the words of God of the bible in the same manner when you insert millions of years to replace, fully formed creations made to reproduce after their own kind. You then labour to seek evidence for things that simply aren’t stated.

    His choice to dis-believe, and your choice to believe their claims, is what I meant by “your belief is your will.” If both of you where to share the same opinion then it would be safe to say you have a common will to believe the claims made.

  175. on 17 Aug 2014 at 3:40 pm 175.The Prickly Science Guy said …

    “Is not the same as…”

    Sure thing T, spin it as you like. Mu statement stands.

    “You misrepresent the words of God of the bible in the same manner when you insert millions of years”

    Wham! That came out of no where! Lol!

    ok, now where is my quote for that T? Any clue what you are talking about?

  176. on 18 Aug 2014 at 12:44 am 176.TJ said …

    To The Prickly Science Guy

    You state…
    “Wham! That came out of no where! Lol!”

    Back at comment #747 I asked you directly the following…

    The Prickly Science Guy, (“I am a man of science. Bring facts, observations, testing to the table nan! Lol!!!”)
    I’m still fuzzy on your origin stand point. Which group are you in…
    A. Goddidit
    B. God is imaginary
    c. I don’t know
    D. We currently cannot know because all we have are theories.
    ?

    You either missed my questioning or ignored it.

    #756 Anonymous answered on your behalf…

    “I’ll take this one. As near as I can tell, the Prick’s philosophy (for lack of a better term) ALWAYS eventually distills down to putting a god into the niches and recesses of science. Look up “god of the gaps”. Anything that is not completely understood and explained has a god attached.
    He has no problem with a billions of year old Earth, early life being of a relatively simple single celled nature, Humans appearing on Earth about .0003 billion years ago, and human/ape having 99% similar DNA. Of course, there are so many more facts that he agrees with that help to support the theory of evolution. But his interpretation of the data must absolutely involve a god. (BTW, Prick seems to understand how a bias can skew data). So, as I mentioned way up above in this thread, life is about compromise. When necessary, Prick abandons logic and reason to accept and keep his faith alive.”

    You made no objections to his claims regarding your views so I had no other option but to run with his outline until you provide me with your own. I threw in the comment…

    “You misrepresent the words of God of the bible in the same manner when you insert millions of years”

    …hoping to get your attention on this.

    So… is the Real Anonymous correct?

  177. on 18 Aug 2014 at 1:10 am 177.The Prickly Science Guy said …

    “756 Anonymous answered on your behalf…?

    ohhhhhh! You believed F&M as he spoke for me. You missed when I laughed his claims I used God of the gaps huh? F&M has a very elementary understanding not to mention he is an atheist! Lol!!!

    You know TJ, maybe you shouldn’t believe everything you hear. In other words don’t be throwing around accusations around when you don’t know what you are talking about.

    “You made no objections to his claims regarding your views”

    Why? Lol!!!! He claims all sorts of silliness, can’t cover all of it. Only you believed it.

  178. on 18 Aug 2014 at 1:13 am 178.The Prickly Science Guy said …

    “So… is the Real Anonymous correct??

    I don’t recognize the name. There is Freddie who also posts as Anonymousr.

    The real Anonymous only has one handle.

  179. on 18 Aug 2014 at 3:49 am 179.TJ said …

    The Prickly Science Guy said…

    “You know TJ, maybe you shouldn’t believe everything you hear. In other words don’t be throwing around accusations around when you don’t know what you are talking about.”

    You are correct, which is why I asked you directly… twice.

    “You missed when I laughed his claims I used God of the gaps huh? ”

    Laughing off his claims is not the same as answering my question.

    “You made no objections to his claims regarding your views”

    What should I object to? My views have been made clear, Have they not? If you feel I missed something, point it out and I’d be happy to comment.

  180. on 18 Aug 2014 at 11:47 am 180.The Prickly Science Guy said …

    “Laughing off his claims is not the same as answering my question.”

    OK, T, pay attention. I laughed off his claim that I believe in a God of the Gaps. What that means is, I do not believe in a God of the Gaps. Read the second part of the sentence and it becomes clear.

    “”You made no objections to his claims regarding your views””

    So why are you requiting yourself TJ. This is not even my statement it is yours….. To which I responded:

    Why? Lol!!!! He claims all sorts of silliness, can’t cover all of it. Only you believed it.

    Now your question. You are correct I never did see it.
    There is a God who is the designer and creator of the universe. The process and/or mechanism He used I do not know. Many theories exist in the various forms of creationism as well numerous models put forth by science. Regardless, God put the process in place…obviously.

    Have a good week fellers. Chow

  181. on 18 Aug 2014 at 2:19 pm 181.freddies_dead said …

    767.A the lying prick posting as A The Prickly Science Guy said …

    Freddie Mouse? Four posts in a row? Couldn’t you pull in Anonymouse to break the cycle? Oh well….nevertheless,,,,,

    Back to A the lying prick’s projection … A the lying prick posting as Martin while writing “Martin, Good one!”, now that’s some dumb arsed sockpuppetry.

    “once thought to be the purview of deities – from sunrises to thunder and lightning to modern biodiversity”

    Identifying a process does not eliminate God.

    This is irrelevant as I never claimed it did.

    Never has……I never claimed there was a thunder God or a Lightning God…….You know some F&M? Next!

    This is also irrelevant as I never claimed A the lying prick had.

    “Sure I did.” (I didn’t say this, A the lying prick did.)

    No you didn’t……Next! lol!!!!

    Refuting his own claims. I’d ask why he’s answering himself here but I really don’t care, it’s just funny to see him contradicting himself so blatantly.

    “This is simply not true. Atheism is not equal to astronomy. Just like atheism is not equal to science”

    LOL!!!!! Agreed and where did you get that idea?

    What idea? They’re simple facts.

    Science is a pursuit of knowledge of existing processes. Those processes were put in place by God.

    So he’ll have no trouble demonstrating that his God exists … I won’t be holding my breath as A the lying prick dodges this requirement yet again.

    The problem for the atheist is how to put processes in place that can create all the processes….LOL!!!!!!

    I note A the lying prick fails to demonstrate that this is a problem for atheists, he barely asserts it without any reasoning. This is not uncommon. Why, for example, do the processes have to be created? After all, I’m sure A the lying prick would say his God wasn’t created so we know that not everything needs a creator.

    “So basically you bought up the Oort cloud for nothing.”

    LOL!!!, no but your obsession with it is funny.

    How is A the lying prick bringing up the Oort cloud my obsession? Once more he makes no sense.

    It is an example of…….careful here buddy……FAITH…..used in scientist. We have no proof of Oort actually existing but it is assumed to exist…..Faith :)

    There’s actually no faith here. There are data points (like long interval comets) that can be explained by the assumption of a hypothetical cloud of cometary material far out on the edge of our star system. No-one actually claims that it must exist (despite what A the lying prick keeps saying) and it merely serves as a possible explanation. If new data is found that makes the Oort cloud unlikely, or even impossible, then scientists will abandon the idea and come up with a new explanation that seeks to explain everything the Oort cloud did PLUS the new information. Obviously, if A the lying prick has a better explanation then he’s welcome to present it and the data that it explains. Once more I wouldn’t recommend anyone hold their breath during the wait.

    Don’t obsess over it F&M.

    And yet it’s A the lying prick that keeps on about it.

    Its like macroevolution.

    Another barely asserted claim. Lets see if A the lying prick can actually show how the hypothetical Oort cloud is like the best supported scientific theory we have. If anyone is thinking of holding their breath, please don’t.

    save the funniest for last……..

    “Already done. In posts 470, 471, 539, 540, 589, 649 and 652 I gave the Objectivist position which shows creator Gods are impossible.”

    ROTFL!!!!! Tada The objectivist position. Let me summarize for our readers, k?

    1. For God to exist, F&M will understand How God exists
    2. F&M cannot understand or comprehend how a God can exist.
    3. Therefore God does not exist.

    ROTFL!!!!!!! Good one F&M! Next!

    That really is funny. A the lying prick has now shown that he has absolutely zero understanding of the Objectivist position. Well done. I didn’t think he could get any more dumb but he continues to amaze me with his repeated successes at breaking his own stupidity record. I’m beginning to be surprised at the fact that he continues to live. I wonder if he has an alarm every few seconds to remind him to breathe…

  182. on 18 Aug 2014 at 2:21 pm 182.freddies_dead said …

    768.A the lying prick posting as A The Prickly Science Guy said … (to TJ)

    TJ,

    Don’t you realize what F&M is saying? The family is a bunch of liars! They taught the little boy to lie.

    TJ, I’m not sure why the lying prick directed this comment at you as I was having the discussion with messy, however, I hope you realise by now that A the lying prick is fundamentally dishonest, which is why he projects his dishonesty onto everyone else on this blog. Nowhere in my discussions with messy did I say anyone was deliberately lying. The parents claim not to have discussed the miscarriage directly with their children or discussed it in front of them. That leaves perfectly mundane options such as the child overhearing it without his parents realising or overhearing it/being told about it by other family members. All without calling anyone a liar. Except for A the lying prick of course, but then his dishonesty is well documented.

    Everyone who experiences God is a liar.

    Again, not something I’ve ever claimed, however, due to the fact that God doesn’t exist, I will say they are simply failing to identify what they are imagining as purely imaginary.

    Only atheist tell the truth!

    Again, not something I have ever claimed.

    lol!!!!

    It is indeed funny to see A the lying prick being dishonest whilst trying (and failing) to accuse others of dishonesty.

  183. on 18 Aug 2014 at 2:23 pm 183.freddies_dead said …

    772.A the lying prick posting as A The Prickly Science Guy said … (to TJ)

    “freddies_dead is saying no such thing.”

    Really? So his F&M’s quote:

    “There had been at least 4 years between the miscarriage and the 4 year old’s alleged NDE. That’s at least 4 years during which the child could have learned of his mother’s miscarriage.”

    Directly conflicts with what the father and the now teenage boy claim.

    Odd, the only claims I’ve seen so far are 1) that the parents say they never directly told the boy or discussed it in front of him. I don’t see how that definitively rules out the possibility that the boy overheard a conversation – either between his parents or other family members. He may even have overheard it and not even consciously realised it, the information only coming to light after his NDE experience and 2) the boy claimed to see Jesus riding a rainbow coloured horse. I’m wondering why no-one is defending this claim as vigourously.

    I heard them being interviewed. So yes, Freddie is calling them a liar. That, TJ, is the definition of the word “liar”.

    Once again A the lying prick is accusing me of doing something I haven’t done. He, on the other hand, is a documented liar. If we were to look up “liar” in the dictionary I wouldn’t be surprised to see “A the lying prick” as one of the synonyms.

    Oh, and TJ, I have not read the book or seen the movie. I have no opinion on the claims so you can drop the “your belief is your will. His disbelief is his will”….whatever that is suppose to mean. Does that mean his belief could be my will?????

    Carry on TJ.

    You’ll probably notice going forward that A the lying prick will claim to “have no opinion” on a wide variety of things – even things he makes direct claims about. He does this in an effort to avoid shouldering his share of the burden of proof evidenced by his routine failure to answer any of the questions asked of him.

  184. on 18 Aug 2014 at 2:23 pm 184.freddies_dead said …

    773.the messenger said …

    794.A The Prickly Science Guy, face it, deadfred is oblivious to the truth.

    To what truth are you referring? And is that truth “true” regardless of what anyone may think, wish, demand etc…? If so how do you account for that objectivity from within your inherently subjective Christian worldview?

    I learned that from debating with him.

    So far you don’t appear to have learned anything from the discussions we’ve had – including the meaning of the words forever, endless and eternal.

  185. on 18 Aug 2014 at 2:25 pm 185.freddies_dead said …

    778.A the lying prick posting as The Prickly Science Guy said … (to TJ)

    “So… is the Real Anonymous correct??

    I don’t recognize the name. There is Freddie who also posts as Anonymousr.

    A the lying prick is, once more, lying … hardly something new. On the thread titled “The insanity of Christianity: Prayer edition” post 1090 explains exactly what happened. It’s easy enough to test out the hypothesis (you know, like a real science guy would do). I even did did the experiment right there on the thread in question (post 1089). Of course A is a lying prick who has been caught more than once posting under different usernames (Martin, 40YA, RL Wootten etc…) so he projects that dishonesty onto others because he doesn’t get that there are honest people out there (because he isn’t one of them). As I said at the time and will probably say again in the future, this isn’t my problem.

  186. on 18 Aug 2014 at 2:26 pm 186.freddies_dead said …

    780.A the lying prick posting as The Prickly Science Guy said … (to TJ)

    There is a God who is the designer and creator of the universe.

    There’s the claim, now where’s the evidence?

    The process and/or mechanism He used I do not know.

    And yet A the lying prick is adamant that one of those processes couldn’t have been evolution. The hypocrisy is almost breathtaking.

    Many theories exist in the various forms of creationism as well numerous models put forth by science. Regardless, God put the process in place…obviously.

    There’s the claim again, now where’s the evidence? Don’t forget everyone, holding your breath as you wait is NOT a good idea.

  187. on 18 Aug 2014 at 5:27 pm 187.DPK said …

    “There is a God who is the designer and creator of the universe. The process and/or mechanism He used I do not know. Many theories exist in the various forms of creationism as well numerous models put forth by science. Regardless, God put the process in place…obviously.”

    Which is, in fact, the very essence of the “god of the gaps” argument.

    This is all you will ever get out of A. Basically a deist position of “well there must be a god because you cannot explain _______________ without one. LOL.
    A sad position because it has been shown to be wrong, historically, time and time and time again.

    You theists all seem to have very different ideas about your imaginary god. Messy thinks Jesus rides around heaven on a rainbow pony. A thinks a god put creation in motion and left. TJ doesn’t believe god is omniscient, and others think you will all burn in the fires of hell for not accepting Allah.

    TJ, you will get nothing more specific from A. The most I ever got from him was an admission of his god as a “somewhat clever, kind of powerful” being. By his definition his “god” could be nothing more than a sufficiently advanced alien. Beyond that he avoids any specific claims outside of the narrow gaps of origins and bio-genesis where his god currently lives. He knows they are indefensible and illogical, so he will avoid them like the plague. That is simply “how he do”. That is why we all laugh at him. He is, quite simply, a complete fraud. At least you have the courage to take a position and defend it. Well done to you and worthy of respect, even if I disagree with you.

    Ask him how he gets from his “obvious” conclusion of a designer god to a personal god who intercedes in the physical world, responds to prayers, loves us, and will judge us for our thoughts and deeds and will punish us with eternal torment or reward us with eternal bliss.
    He will not answer.
    Glad you got to see his true colors as a lying deceitful troll though. It seldom take long. hahaha.

  188. on 18 Aug 2014 at 11:29 pm 188.TJ said …

    “TJ doesn’t believe god is omniscient,”

    Allow me to be clear on this…

    Omniscient definition, having complete or unlimited knowledge, awareness, or understanding; perceiving all things.

    1595-1605; < Neo-Latin omniscient-, stem of omnisci?ns, equivalent to Latin omni- omni- + scient- knowing; see science

    omni-
    Word Origin
    1.
    a combining form meaning “all,” used in the formation of compound words:
    omnifarious; omnipotence; omniscient.

    science – noun
    1.
    a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws:
    the mathematical sciences.
    2.
    systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.
    3.
    any of the branches of natural or physical science.
    4.
    systematized knowledge in general.
    5.
    knowledge, as of facts or principles; knowledge gained by systematic study.
    6.
    a particular branch of knowledge.
    7.
    skill, especially reflecting a precise application of facts or principles; proficiency.

    My objection come when this concept, is commonly held to believe that this makes God a planner of our actions relieving us of the ability to exercise free will.

    God defines his Knowledge as perfect of all things knowable. The word Omniscient is commonly used to ascribe traits to God that do not fit the definition of Omniscient or the definition of God according to his own word.

    Many words commonly held meanings change over the course of time, cultures and context.

    My rejection is not of God being Omniscient. My rejection is all the associated extended reasoning that is commonly drawn when people refer to God as Omniscient.

  189. on 19 Aug 2014 at 3:04 am 189.DPK said …

    “God defines his Knowledge as perfect of all things knowable.”
    What is not knowable? Are events in the future knowable? Forget the common claim that god has planned everything. Does god know what will occur in our future?

  190. on 19 Aug 2014 at 11:27 pm 190.The Prickly Science Guy said …

    “Ask him how he gets from his “obvious” conclusion of a designer god to a personal god who intercedes?

    Dippity Dew!! You are back.

    Unlike TJ, I don’t discuss semiconductor theory with with a first grade child and I don’t discuss theology with an atheist. There are prerequisites and you don’t meet them. Realizing God does exist is step one. Sorry Charlie! Check out Dawkins and his spin on Theology! Lol!!! Hilarious

    What I do is point out the hypocrisy and unreasonable dogma incorporated in atheism. You run from those and change the subject when they come up because they frighten you. I understand nut you need to confront those demons.

    Luv ya Dippity!

  191. on 20 Aug 2014 at 12:32 am 191.TJ said …

    To DPK,

    Does god know what will occur in our future?

    What a great question!

    I admit I struggle with this. Particularly because I find it challenging to define time. I also struggle to differentiate projected forecasting and concrete knowledge of things to come.

    Today for example, I’m off to my parents to repair some playground equipment (my mother does respite care for children with disabilities). I know that I will leave soon, do some work and return home tonight.

    Is this knowledge of the future or a plan I will make into a reality? I understand that there could be some setbacks and my plans could be postponed for a variety of reasons. The plan will still remain even if it takes an extra day, or is postponed for a week.

    When the Job is done, is it applicable to say I knew the future in a broad sense regardless of the time frame required to fulfil all the requirements of the job/plan?

    On a different angle, experiments conducted where participants brain waves are monitored while they are shown a series of conflicting images show some interesting results. The images randomly appear on screen with a slight delay (black/blank screen) between them. Images range from cute animals and scenic landscapes to horror and images of gore an injury.

    Participates consistently show brain wave reactions/patterns that correlate to the types of images displayed. What was found to be of particular interest was that during the blank screen between images, most participates brain waves where shown to have pre-reacted to the negative images a split second before the image was visible. The softer friendlier images showed a split second delayed reaction after the image was shown.

    The researchers put an evolutionary spin on the whole thing and made some correlations to the sub conscious, fight or flight, Déjà vu, fortune telling and the need for further research.

    Does the participants pre-reaction equate to for-knowledge, no matter how small the time frame?

    Man makes prediction on the future all the time. Weather forecasting, business projections, trends etc. We rely on our ability to evaluate all the known variables, guesstimate the rest and plan accordingly. We often get it wrong, brag when we are right and are called lucky/arsy if we are good at it.

    With concern to God knowing the future? He certainly claims to have a perfect knowledge of the creation and how it works. He claims to know the hearts of men. He claims that nobody has the power or authority to prevents his plans from coming to fulfilment and that his will, will prevail over all others.

    When ever prophecy is revealed in the old testament it is presented as Gods intention to make things happen, regardless of man’s will. When ever God reveals his intentions he presents those involved with two options. The first equates to the the easy way, the second outlines what God is prepared to allow to happen and his actions in order to achieve his goals. Each and every time those involved are presented with a choice… work with God or suffer the consequences.

    In the new testament God reveals his future intentions without a specified time frame. Instead he confirms that for his plan to be complete all things required must come to pass.

    It is interesting that all revelations to man are received through spiritual means. Including dreams, visions and being taken in the “spirit”. How does this compare to claims of astral projection and other out of body experiences or those that claim to be able to foresee the future, including the sub-conscious brain patterns in the experiment.

    Combine all this with what we theorise about time space matter and I honestly don’t know if God “knows” the future, or simply has superior knowledge, superior understanding and a superior will and authority to wield the flow of time in the direction of his plan.

    Great question, food for thought.

  192. on 20 Aug 2014 at 1:53 am 192.DPK said …

    Today for example, I’m off to my parents to repair some playground equipment (my mother does respite care for children with disabilities). I know that I will leave soon, do some work and return home tonight.
    Is this knowledge of the future or a plan I will make into a reality? I understand that there could be some setbacks and my plans could be postponed for a variety of reasons. The plan will still remain even if it takes an extra day, or is postponed for a week.”

    No, intent is not “knowledge”. You do not “know” that your plan will ultimately become reality. You could well be hit by a bus or our sun could go supernova and your intent will not become a reality. But god has a “perfect ” knowledge, which means whatever he knows cannot be incorrect, not in the slightest detail. Since god has supposedly foretold events that will occur, and his knowledge is said to be perfect, one can only assume that he would indeed know the future. If the future is knowable then, his knowledge of it must be perfect.
    Since god has a perfect knowledge of what will happen, then we, and he, cannot possibly change it. If we could, then his knowledge could not be perfect, because it could be wrong. Therefore free will is an illusion. God being all powerful is impossible, because there exist an entire set of events that cannot occur because he knows they won’t.
    Gee your idea of a supernatural god just keeps getting sillier.

  193. on 20 Aug 2014 at 12:47 pm 193.freddies_dead said …

    790.A the lying prick posting as The Prickly Science Guy said … (to DPK)

    I don’t discuss semiconductor theory with with a first grade child

    Probably because the first grade child would know more about it, just like everyone here knows more about science than the self professed “science guy”.

    and I don’t discuss theology with an atheist.

    Once again it’s because the atheists know more about it than A the lying prick.

    There are prerequisites and you don’t meet them.

    Well, when one of the prerequisites is to know less than A the lying prick. That’s a bar so low it’s nearly impossible to get under it. You’d have to look long and hard to find someone who fits the bill and as A the lying prick has said, none of us atheists meet that incredibly low standard.

    Realizing God does exist is step one.

    How can we realise something that doesn’t fit with the facts of reality? A the lying prick has never once given a reason that would cause us to realise anything about his God. All we can do is imagine his God with him and, unfortunately for A the lying prick, it stubbornly remains imaginary as it has no basis in reality.

    What I do is point out the hypocrisy and unreasonable dogma incorporated in atheism.

    Now an honest person would actually point to an instance of them “pointing out hypocrisy” they believe is inherent in atheism to prove their claim, but of course A isn’t honest … he is, after all, a documented liar. He also falls short of demonstrating his claim to point out unreasonable dogma, hardly a surprise as A the lying prick never backs up any of his barely asserted nonsense.

    You run from those and change the subject when they come up because they frighten you.

    And once more A the lying prick resorts to projection, obviously not realising that others don’t share his fears. The fact we’re all here to discuss God whilst A the lying prick refuses to is testament to my point.

    I understand nut you need to confront those demons.

    And back to the imaginary. I wonder if A the lying prick is capable of telling us how we can distinguish his demons from something he may be merely imagining? I’d predict the answer to be “no” but it’s more of an inevitability than a prediction.

  194. on 20 Aug 2014 at 3:09 pm 194.TJ said …

    DPK,

    “No, intent is not “knowledge”.”

    I agree.

    “But god has a “perfect ” knowledge,”

    God claims perfect knowledge of all things knowable. You assume the future is knowable. I don’t agree that we can assume this.

    I simply don’t know.

    Is Revelations a revealing of knowledge or a revealing of intent?

    Is Gods promise to Adam and Eve to send a kinsman redeemer a revealing of knowledge or a revealing of intent?

  195. on 20 Aug 2014 at 3:31 pm 195.freddies_dead said …

    It seems TJ thinks it’s possible his omniscient God doesn’t know the future. This seems to contradict the common notion that God exists outside time – indeed that He created time – and can see all of it before Him.

    Exactly what would be the difference between an omnipotent being “intending” something will happen and “knowing” that it will happen? Surely if an omnipotent entity intends something to happen it will happen?

    This God gets less godlike with each passing moment…

  196. on 20 Aug 2014 at 3:43 pm 196.DPK said …

    “This God gets less godlike with each passing moment…”

    Indeed the mental gymnastics and endless rationalizations required to continue belief grows quickly burdensome.
    TJ, there is a far simpler explanation that does not require a need to continually make up excuses for why your god is indistinguishable from one that is completely imaginary.

  197. on 20 Aug 2014 at 3:55 pm 197.TJ said …

    “Surely if an omnipotent entity intends something to happen it will happen?”

    This is the exact claim of God. That we should have faith in what he says he will do and what he has done.

    It is you guys who repeatedly claim that this situation cancels out free will.

    Surly you do not deny free will? Without a God, how do you account for imagination, emotion, and all the other attributes required for expressing and exercising free will?

    You have dismissed my claims, claiming them unreasonable. Please show me what is reasonable.

  198. on 20 Aug 2014 at 4:21 pm 198.TJ said …

    “TJ, there is a far simpler explanation that does not require a need to continually make up excuses for why your god is indistinguishable from one that is completely imaginary.”

    If this true and the issue has been settled to your own satisfaction, then why do you persist to query me?

    Why not just be done with me?

    You would not routinely visit other sites that discuss imaginary claims… or do you?

    What is it that draws you back each time? What is it you seek?

  199. on 20 Aug 2014 at 6:10 pm 199.alex said …

    “Why not just be done with me?”

    read the url, you dumb motherfucker. it’s an obvious atheist site, but you insist on posting your shit and you keep getting your ass handed to you.

    same reason i curse out the bible humping motherfuckers that keep knocking on my door.

    dumbass bitch.

  200. on 20 Aug 2014 at 6:22 pm 200.The Prickly Science Guy said …

    “You would not routinely visit other sites that discuss imaginary claims… or do you?”

    lol!!!!!

    Which is what I have pointed out numerous times. They come back because they are hoping to convince themselves that the cultic dogma of no Creator is true.

    why are there so few atheist if the dogma is so obvious? It’s because atheism is illogical, unreasonable and does not fit what human beings observe. Its really quite obvious. As a man of science, I can only follow where the facts lead.
    :)

Trackback This Post | Subscribe to the comments through RSS Feed

Leave a Reply