Feed on Posts or Comments 28 June 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 20 Aug 2014 at 6:47 pm 1.alex said …

    “why are there so few atheist if the dogma is so obvious?”

    why are most of the world’s population not xtians?

    figure it out, bitch, motherfucker.

  2. on 20 Aug 2014 at 7:28 pm 2.DPK said …

    “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?”

    I do not deny free will. Do the math.

    “Without a God, how do you account for imagination, emotion, and all the other attributes required for expressing and exercising free will?”

    How is it you see a magical god necessary for the exercise of free will? My dog has free will. When I call him, he can choose to come, or stay on the couch. What requires a god?

    “If this true and the issue has been settled to your own satisfaction, then why do you persist to query me?”

    Uh, you were the one who came here and asked for discussion. You however, are only interested in “discussion” to the point that your arguments fall apart and your delusion is revealed, then you simply want to preach and have others leave you alone. Doesn’t say much for your position when you have to pull the persecution card when things don’t go your way.

  3. on 20 Aug 2014 at 10:34 pm 3.TJ said …

    “Uh, you were the one who came here and asked for discussion. You however, are only interested in “discussion” to the point that your arguments fall apart…”

    So? When I say “I simply don’t know” in relation to the question “can God Know the future?”. You take this as my argument falls apart.

    What was your argument for how did life arose?

    “How is it you see a magical god necessary for the exercise of free will?”

    How is it you see no need for a source of intelligence for the abundant evidence of an information based universe?

    —————————————–
    “one can only assume that he would indeed know the future.”

    “Indeed the mental gymnastics and endless rationalizations required to continue belief grows quickly burdensome.”

    “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”
    —————————————–

    My idea of God is based on what the bible says. Your ideas of God are based on what? Things you’ve heard? Things read? Read where? Things you’ve imagined? If not your own imagination then who’s? Certainly not mine.

    “Doesn’t say much for your position when you have to pull the persecution card when things don’t go your way.”

    What persecution card? Defending my stance was respectful before. Making a statement and rationalising it is ok, even if you disagree, but Rationalising why I don’t know is now a problem?

    “I do not deny free will. Do the math.”

    I didn’t claim you did. I asked that if the bible doesn’t explain free will… what does?

    What do you offer me as rational to your claim that God is imaginary? Removing God creates a void in my belief. What is reasonable to replace it… what would you offer as rational in regard to origins?

  4. on 20 Aug 2014 at 11:01 pm 4.TJ said …

    “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.”

    This seems a sound rational in light of a lack of explanation from any atheist.

    Alex’s claim is that atheist own this site. The invitation for believers and non-believers to discuss the existence of a God, seems to be a trap for theist to stumble into so they can have their arses handed to them. Anyone who is not an atheist and tries to discuss is by default, a “dumbass bitch, motherfucker”. Same goes for those who knock on his front door to discuss God. He curses them and drives them away, yet actively seeks them out online.

    I visit this site to test my faith. If I cannot defend my beliefs and rationalise them to a disbelieving, occasional hostile, atheistic, anonymous environment such as this site. Then what hope do I have of answering my children’s questions when they come home and ask me questions on faith. How can I answer their doubts, or the doubt of others they talk to. Call it preparation if you will.

    I don’t ask questions I am not prepared to answer myself unless I state otherwise. I do this because I believe I should act towards others in a manner that reflects how I would want others to act towards me. I sometimes fail in this.

    I try to be completely honest or at least what I believe to be honest. I am not perfect, nor do I know all the answers.

    In the end I give only the information I choose to share, as does everyone else. We are essentially all anonymous here on this site.

  5. on 21 Aug 2014 at 1:09 am 5.A The Prickly Science Guy said …

    “What persecution card? Defending my stance was respectful before. Making a statement and rationalising it is ok, even if you disagree, but Rationalising why I don’t know is now a problem?”

    TJ,

    Have you ever taken psychology? Before, you had a common enemy in Dippity Dew’s eyes, namely me. Now you are going one on one with Dippity Dew and you are now the enemy.

    This is how Dippity and F&M operate. The hide behind a fence and take shots while running from their illogical and often hypocritical positions. It is the same song and dance.

    They will throw around words like Delusional, Santa, Elves, fairy tales, etc, etc but provide zero answers. Origins? Source of morality? Information Theory?, Epistemology? Ontology?

    Nothing…..sigh!

  6. on 21 Aug 2014 at 2:28 pm 6.freddies_dead said …

    797.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.

    Because if what the omnipotent entity intends to happen will happen, then my free will is abrogated. There is nothing I could choose to do or say that will stop what that God intends to happen.

    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?

    Imagination and emotion are simply attributes of some biological organisms. Why should I assume that they are God given without evidence that such a God exists?

    You have dismissed my claims, claiming them unreasonable. Please show me what is reasonable.

    I’ve already said, it is reasonable to say that free will cannot exist in the face of an omnimax deity with a plan, it’s simply impossible for me to freely choose something that goes against what the deity knows/intends will happen. Such a deity is put forward by the Christian Bible and yet it also claims that people have free will. I’m glad this contradiction isn’t my problem.

  7. on 21 Aug 2014 at 2:32 pm 7.freddies_dead said …

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

    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.

    I don’t need to convince myself of the non-existence of A the lying prick’s God, the facts do that for me. Existence exists, consciousness exists, to exist is to be something specific i.e. identity, the other laws of logic are corollaries of identity. We can then determine the correct relationship between objects that exist and the subjects that are aware of them. We can see that existence holds metaphysical primacy as things are what they are independently of what anyone may think, wish, demand etc… As we now know existence holds primacy we can discard any claims which rely on consciousness holding primacy i.e. any claims that include a creator God.

    why are there so few atheist if the dogma is so obvious?

    Argumentum ad populum fallacy – the truth of something isn’t affected by how many people believe it.

    It’s because atheism is illogical, unreasonable and does not fit what human beings observe.

    On the contrary atheism fits what we observe perfectly. We see a universe where the objects in it are independent of any consciousness that is aware of them – don’t believe me just try turning your keyboard into a goat by willing it. It is this principle – the metaphysical primacy of existence – which means gods are impossible. To claim a god exists is a performative contradiction. A the lying prick affirms the primacy of existence when claiming that “God exists” is true independently of what anyone thinks, wishes, demands. However, he is also affirming the primacy of consciousness – that objects are dependent on any consciousness that is aware of them – when he claims that a God created everything ex nihilo through its will alone.

    Its really quite obvious. As a man of science, I can only follow where the facts lead.
    :)

    If only wishing made it so like A the lying prick’s worldview claims. Those facts just keep stubbornly refusing to fit with the existence of a god.

  8. on 21 Aug 2014 at 5:21 pm 8.The Prickly Science Guy said …

    “Argumentum ad populum fallacy?

    Actually it was not an argument, just a question. Context is not a wrong suit for you, huh? However majority opinion is also not necessarily wrong

    And you failed to answer. Lol!!

    “On the contrary atheism fits what we observe perfectly”

    Nope not even close. And which is why atheism remains a small cult. We observe design, complexity, high information systems all throughout creation. We observe these systems from cells to galaxies and such order is what we observe with intelligence. The atheist belied system leaves no room for intelligence.

  9. on 22 Aug 2014 at 1:02 am 9.TJ said …

    freddies_dead said,

    “Because if what the omnipotent entity intends to happen will happen, then my free will is abrogated. There is nothing I could choose to do or say that will stop what that God intends to happen.”

    If God’s plan is to accept those who believe in him and reject those that reject him. And if the Bible reveals how and why he intends to make this happen. How is your choice of the two options unable to be made?

    “Imagination and emotion are simply attributes of some biological organisms.”

    Do you believe we can create artificial Imagination and emotion?
    Do you think imagination and emotion are requirements for intelligence?
    To create the holy grail of science, artificial intelligence, do we need to look to biological computing, rather than the current elemental based computing?
    If so, would that be considered artificial?
    If a chimp is 99% the same DNA (biological organism) as humans, then why do we see a vast difference in the output of intelligence?

    ————————————————-
    Ultimately freddies_dead, the differences between your world view and mine is in this origin…

    Yours… existence is the creator of consciousness.

    Mine… consciousness is the creator of existence.

    would you agree?

    This quote from a site titled “Primacy of Existence vs. Primacy of Consciousness”

    “The primacy of existence (of reality) is the axiom that existence exists, i.e., that the universe exists independent of consciousness (of any consciousness), that things are what they are, that they possess a specific nature, an identity.”

    God as the Primacy of Consciousness.
    God claims that the reality is his formless conscious eternal state was the only thing to have existed. He makes statements regarding his nature, love, power, knowledge etc and maintains “I am what I am”. This is similar to “that things are what they are, that they possess a specific nature, an identity”. God is very specific to his identity and nature.

    You drew attention to The Prickly Science Guy saying… ” However, he is also affirming the primacy of consciousness – that objects are dependent on any consciousness that is aware of them – when he claims that a God created everything ex nihilo through its will alone.”

    I would add that God states that “the only begotten Son of the Father”, “the first born of creation “, “the Word” is the only thing that was created purely from the power/will of the Prime Formless Consciousness.

    Everything else is created through the existence of this first form, the identity and personification of the Prime Formless Consciousness.

    Ultimately this is one absolute truth that God asks you to accept… by choice, albeit God warns rejecting it and Him will not be without consequence.

  10. on 22 Aug 2014 at 1:19 am 10.TJ said …

    The Prickly Science Guy

    Nothing…..sigh!

    …and don’t forget your faith and mine are baseless… imaginary… lol.

    You and I may not agree on all the details for sure. But according to our belief in God. To reject him is to have one foot in the grave, to have a little faith is to leave the door ajar for Christ to enter. A saying, I’m sure will be lost on them.

  11. on 22 Aug 2014 at 1:23 pm 11.freddies_dead said …

    808.The Prickly Science Guy said …

    “Argumentum ad populum fallacy?

    Actually it was not an argument, just a question.

    The implication behind the question was quite clear.

    Context is not a wrong suit for you, huh?

    Word salad.

    However majority opinion is also not necessarily wrong

    This is irrelevant as I never claimed that it was.

    And you failed to answer. Lol!!

    A the lying prick’s question wasn’t actually directed at me so I was under no obligation to answer it. Also, when you break the question down, you will note that not only does it commit the argumentum ad populum fallacy, it is also a loaded question i.e. the question presupposes that atheist “dogma” exists, something A the lying prick hasn’t demonstrated.

    “On the contrary atheism fits what we observe perfectly”

    Nope not even close.

    No, not close, perfectly.

    And which is why atheism remains a small cult.

    Note that A the lying prick offers no supporting argument for this barely asserted nonsense. He doesn’t even show how atheism can be called a cult given the standard definitions of the word.

    We observe design,

    George H. Smith says it nicely in his book Atheism: The Case Against God

    “Consider the idea that nature itself is the product of design. How could this be demonstrated? Nature, as we have seen, provides the basis of comparison by which we distinguish between designed objects and natural objects. We are able to infer the presence of design only to the extent that the characteristics of an object differ from natural characteristics. Therefore, to claim that nature as a whole was designed is to destroy the basis by which we differentiate between artifacts and natural objects. Evidences of design are those characteristics not found in nature, so it is impossible to produce evidence of design within the context of nature itself. Only if we first step beyond nature, and establish the existence of a supernatural designer, can we conclude that nature is the result of conscious planning. (p. 268)”

    i.e. the design hypothesis is self defeating – if everything is designed you cannot discern design. You must first prove God and you can’t use design as part of that proof.

    complexity, high information systems

    A the lying prick has failed on several occasions to define what he means by “complexity” or “high information”. They’re just buzzwords that he thinks support his argument. However, his argument is self defeating. If complex, high information systems can only come about from a similarly complex and high information source while that complex and high information source wasn’t created, the argument shows that we don’t actually need a complex and high information source in order to get complexity and high information.

    all throughout creation.

    A the lying prick is yet to demonstrate the existence of any “creation”.

    We observe these systems from cells to galaxies and such order is what we observe with intelligence.

    Back to A the lying prick’s self defeating argument. Trying to infer some sort of designed order from within a system where everything is alleged to be designed giving him nothing to compare “design” against.

    The atheist belied system leaves no room for intelligence.

    Note that A the lying prick offers no supporting argument for this barely asserted nonsense.

  12. on 22 Aug 2014 at 1:37 pm 12.freddies_dead said …

    809.TJ said …

    freddies_dead said,

    “Because if what the omnipotent entity intends to happen will happen, then my free will is abrogated. There is nothing I could choose to do or say that will stop what that God intends to happen.”

    If God’s plan is to accept those who believe in him and reject those that reject him. And if the Bible reveals how and why he intends to make this happen. How is your choice of the two options unable to be made?

    I do love the way you continuously downgrade your God. The Bible speaks of an all knowing, all powerful God with a plan for His own glory. Nothing happens but through the will of this God but hey, despite all those claims, we can apparently still make choices that this all knowing God doesn’t know we’ll make. I get that you have to do these mental gymnastics to try and avoid the absurdity inherent in Christianity but it’s not working. I’m glad it’s not my problem.

    “Imagination and emotion are simply attributes of some biological organisms.”

    Do you believe we can create artificial Imagination and emotion?
    Do you think imagination and emotion are requirements for intelligence?
    To create the holy grail of science, artificial intelligence, do we need to look to biological computing, rather than the current elemental based computing?
    If so, would that be considered artificial?
    If a chimp is 99% the same DNA (biological organism) as humans, then why do we see a vast difference in the output of intelligence?

    Whilst these questions are interesting scientifically I’m wondering what they have to do with this philosophical discussion? I asked why I should accept that imagination and emotion are God given when there’s no evidence that said God exists. Do you have an answer for that or will you resort to more red herrings?

    ————————————————-
    Ultimately freddies_dead, the differences between your world view and mine is in this origin…

    Yours… existence is the creator of consciousness.

    Mine… consciousness is the creator of existence.

    would you agree?

    Not really. The difference comes in recognising the relationship between objects and the subjects that are aware of them. Your worldview affirms that consciousness holds metaphysical primacy over existence whereas I acknowledge that it is existence that holds metaphysical primacy over consciousness. Whilst your view does make the claim that God willed everything into existence, mine makes no similar claim regarding existence “creating” consciousness. Consciousness isn’t necessary just because existence exists, existence would carry on existing even if there were no consciousnesses around to be aware of it. That’s the whole point of objects existing independently of the subjects that may be aware of them.

    This quote from a site titled “Primacy of Existence vs. Primacy of Consciousness”

    “The primacy of existence (of reality) is the axiom that existence exists, i.e., that the universe exists independent of consciousness (of any consciousness), that things are what they are, that they possess a specific nature, an identity.”

    The rest of that quote:
    “The epistemological corollary is the axiom that consciousness is the faculty of perceiving that which exists—and that man gains knowledge of reality by looking outward. The rejection of these axioms represents a reversal: the primacy of consciousness—the notion that the universe has no independent existence, that it is the product of a consciousness (either human or divine or both). The epistemological corollary is the notion that man gains knowledge of reality by looking inward (either at his own consciousness or at the revelations it receives from another, superior consciousness).”

    God as the Primacy of Consciousness.
    God claims that the reality is his formless conscious eternal state was the only thing to have existed.

    And I should accept this claim why? Is it true independent of what anyone may think, wish, demand etc…? In which case you’re stealing concepts from my worldview in order to deny it. I can imagine a “formless conscious eternal state” but how do I distinguish your God from what I am imagining?

    He makes statements regarding his nature, love, power, knowledge etc and maintains “I am what I am”.

    Again you give no reason why I should accept these statements, especially in light of the fact that you must steal concepts – like truth – from my worldview in order to deny my worldview.

    This is similar to “that things are what they are, that they possess a specific nature, an identity”. God is very specific to his identity and nature.

    Actually the writers of the Bible claim that God was very specific about His identity and nature but they don’t explain how I can distinguish between their God and what they may be imagining either.

    You drew attention to The Prickly Science Guy saying… ” However, he is also affirming the primacy of consciousness – that objects are dependent on any consciousness that is aware of them – when he claims that a God created everything ex nihilo through its will alone.”

    I would add that God states that “the only begotten Son of the Father”, “the first born of creation “, “the Word” is the only thing that was created purely from the power/will of the Prime Formless Consciousness.

    Everything else is created through the existence of this first form, the identity and personification of the Prime Formless Consciousness.

    What is this supposed to mean? Are you trying to claim He only created Jesus and everything else just kind of turned up? That seems to disagree quite considerably with the claims made in Genesis.

    Ultimately this is one absolute truth that God asks you to accept… by choice, albeit God warns rejecting it and Him will not be without consequence.

    Once more, truth only makes sense in a reality where existence holds metaphysical primacy, so your claim here commits the fallacy of the stolen concept by co-opting truth while denying its foundation.

  13. on 22 Aug 2014 at 4:10 pm 13.A The Prickly Science Guy said …

    F&M posting as Dead Freddie said:

    “The implication behind the question was quite clear.”

    True, the implication atheism is illogical and unreasonable and thus the primary reason after multiple centuries it remains a small cult.

    “offers no supporting argument”

    Only for those who refuse to recognize the processes, logic and order that surrounds all of us.

    “George H. Smith says it nicely”

    Fallacious, Appeal to a “so-called” authority who is a part of the cult. Dismissed! lol!!

    “if everything is designed you cannot discern design.”

    Completely untrue. I witness the effects of a tornado, hurricane or even an earthquake and recognize an event that brought only chaos, not design. Witness a 150 yr old home that never has a man maintaining the structure and watch what happens after 50 yrs of “Nature the master designer” acting on the structure. You witness deterioration and destruction. Now when I visit the Guggenheim I recognize design. Dismissed!

    “define what he means by “complexity” or “high information””

    I didn’t defined the word “is” either. lol!! The fact you need those words defined says it all!

    “demonstrate the existence of any “creation”.

    ROTFL!!!!!!

    This is the funniest of them all! You know, a chimp doesn’t recognize the existence of a creation either. Is it possible dead Freddie is actually “Talking Chimp”? Something to consider.

  14. on 24 Aug 2014 at 1:23 am 14.TJ said …

    freddies_dead said

    The rest of that quote:
    “The epistemological corollary is the axiom that consciousness is the faculty of perceiving that which exists—and that man gains knowledge of reality by looking outward. The rejection of these axioms represents a reversal: the primacy of consciousness—the notion that the universe has no independent existence, that it is the product of a consciousness (either human or divine or both). The epistemological corollary is the notion that man gains knowledge of reality by looking inward (either at his own consciousness or at the revelations it receives from another, superior consciousness).”

    …man gains knowledge of reality by looking outward. Then what?

    He doesn’t process and rationalise what he sees from within? When he doesn’t know, he doesn’t look to revelations he receives from another? ie ask someone else.

    Observation does not provide knowledge without interpretation from within.
    —————————————

    “What is this supposed to mean? Are you trying to claim He only created Jesus and everything else just kind of turned up? That seems to disagree quite considerably with the claims made in Genesis.”

    Colossians 1:15-17
    “He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. 16For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities– all things have been created through Him and for Him. 17He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together.”
    —————————————–

    Your statement that I steal from your world-view is stupid and unworthy of comment beyond my initial admit-ion that I was unashamed to admit I didn’t understand your initial statement regarding “Primacy of Existence”… I had to look it up.

    My claims have not changed since I began here, let alone with the knowledge of your world view.
    —————————————-

    “Actually the writers of the Bible claim that God was very specific about His identity and nature but they don’t explain how I can distinguish between their God and what they may be imagining either.”

    Why would they feel the need to distinguish their matter of fact statements, written as scripture to their people, who claim to be “Gods people”?

    Why would I claim that I have faith and believe by choice, that which is written in the Bible. And then attempt to convince you I didn’t imagine God?
    —————————————–

    “I do love the way you continuously downgrade your God. ”

    Downgrading from what? I run with what is written of God.

    You said…
    “I’ve already said, it is reasonable to say that free will cannot exist in the face of an omnimax deity with a plan, it’s simply impossible for me to freely choose something that goes against what the deity knows/intends will happen. Such a deity is put forward by the Christian Bible and yet it also claims that people have free will. I’m glad this contradiction isn’t my problem.”

    The deity could still give us free will, or it wouldn’t be omnipotent. The bible puts forward God’s plan that requires man’s free will as a key factor. Your argument is null.

    The Bible simply does not put forward a Deity according your claim. The issue is not what the Bible says about such a deity, the issue is what you have been led to believe and conclude on what the bible says based on either your own interpretation or the interpretations of others. I’m glad this contradiction isn’t my problem.”

    Unless you can prove your claims from the biblical texts about what they say, why should I believe you and simply not conclude the simplest explanation? That you imagined this God you keep referring to.

    Or are you going to claim I’m stealing your argument again?

  15. on 24 Aug 2014 at 3:50 pm 15.alex said …

    bleh, bleh, motherfucking bleh. hesus, allah and all the rest are just bullshit. “Ambi”, the ambivalent, omniponent One is the real deal.

  16. on 24 Aug 2014 at 11:16 pm 16.TJ said …

    Awww, you feeling neglected Alex?

    Here is a bone for you…

    Quoted from web site titled…

    ——————————————
    From Algae to Oil in Minutes, Not Millions

    Engineers at the Department of Energy‘s Pacific Northwest National Laboratory have devised a way to turn algae into crude oil in less than an hour. That oil can then be refined into gasoline that can run engines.

    “Well, it is a basically simple process that uses temperature, pressure, and time to accomplish the chemical conversions,” Jim explains. “A lot of people think of fossil fuels as, you know, dinosaurs and giant ferns and things. There is some of that, but the bulk of the organic matter was algae. Gradually the organic matter converts into slightly different forms, which make up the material that comes out as crude oil or natural gas.”

    So you’re duplicating that process?

    “Yes. We’re taking organic matter – in this case we’re talking about algae – and we make it into a water slurry so the algae is mixed in water, about 20 percent algae in the water. Then we simply pump that up to a high pressure and heat it. After it’s up at pressure we heat it and we maintain it and hold it at that temperature and keep it moving so it mixes with itself for about 20 to 30 minutes. And during that time the chemical conversions can take place so that the oil is produced in the form of crude oil.”

    This process is almost identical to the natural development of fossil crude oil.

    Does this create crude oil that can be used right away, or does it need to be converted somehow?

    “It can go straight into existing infrastructure. This is something that everybody’s familiar with. We know how to do this. And it’s a very efficient process, so being able to just provide a drop in addition to the fossil fuel supply is obviously interesting and important.”

    Does this work with just one type of algae?

    “It’s all algae, but it’s actually much more than that and much better than that. It’s really anything organic.”

    Wow. So…anything?

    “We could use waste materials. So things that are sort of hard to process, hard to get rid of, like food processing waste or animal waste, like cow manure from dairy or feedlots; waste from human-generated activities, like what’s in the barrels that you put out to the curb or in waste-water solids, which is otherwise known as sewage; and all kinds of things.”
    ———————————————–

    From another site…

    The PNNL team created a continuous process that starts with the wet algae and subjects the entire mass – water, algae, and all – to high temperatures and pressures, in this case, 350ºC (662ºF) and 3,000 psi.

    “It’s a bit like using a pressure cooker, only the pressures and temperatures we use are much higher,” said Laboratory Fellow Douglas Elliott, the leader of the research team. “In a sense, we are duplicating the process in the earth that converted algae into oil over the course of millions of years. We’re just doing it much, much faster.”

    ————————————-

    We know that both temperature and heat can be found in abundance within the earth. We know that the required temp and pressure can be found at the level required and far above those levels. The articles above both attribute the process to nature.

    To make sense of the vast quantities of oil found over the entire globe, we need to account for the vast amounts of organic matter required to be converted. We also need to account for vast amount of water needed to complete the process.

    If you rule out the global flood covering the entire earth, uplifting, overturning and resurfacing the earth destroying all life in order to wipe away all traces of previous man’s activities as described in the Bible and confirmed by Jesus.

    Then how do we explain what we observe and know regarding natural oil deposits?

  17. on 25 Aug 2014 at 12:13 am 17.alex said …

    awww, the tj bitch motherfucker’s porn not loading fast enough? tip. ctrl-t will open up as many porn tabs as you need. see, this will keep your hand busy instead of pasting your bullshit in this site.

    likey?

  18. on 25 Aug 2014 at 2:17 am 18.TJ said …

    lol, wanking tips from Alex.

  19. on 25 Aug 2014 at 2:35 am 19.alex said …

    here’s something to wank on, you dumb motherfucker.

    dating methods prove the earth is more 10,000 years old. how’s that?

    care to even guess/calculate/measure under what conditions these dating methods would be false?

    wank on that.

  20. on 25 Aug 2014 at 11:12 pm 20.TJ said …

    “care to even guess/calculate/measure under what conditions these dating methods would be false?”

    Sure, take the data derived from controlled lab testing and apply varied factors. ie change the heat, pressure, concentration, humidity and any other related factors and find the optimal conditions for elemental decay.

    Just like they did in determining the optimal conditions for creating oil, just like they did for growing diamonds, just like they do for all other processes they wish to obtain the most effect in the shortest time.

    Then we will see if the time requirements associated to dating methods holds strong. Till then, we both only got theory.

    The only reason this isn’t happening is because it is unacceptable to challenge long age dogma. It is unaccepted in the scientific community and it is unaccepted by closed minded individuals like you, who cannot answer any reasonable questions put to them.

    Tell me, why would all the dinosaur bones found in “Death Valley” have a cadaverous odour about them if they are as old as they are assumed to be?

    Why would they appear to have a freshness inside them when they are cut open?

    “dating methods prove the earth is more 10,000 years old. how’s that?”

    There is no proof of your claim, only theory based on calculations based on results from controlled conditions. The controlled conditions ignore all other theory that preach a environment change/conditions over time.

    Rocks created in the Mt St Helens eruption (1986), when tested, gave dates wildly inconsistent with known factors. Instead of questioning the dating method theory, the scientists doing the tests where deemed incompetent.

    Independent testing confirmed the results, but again the theory is not at fault, explanations include… “very tiny amounts of argon contaminants from previous analyses may remain within the equipment, which precludes accurate dates for very young samples.”
    followed by…
    “For older samples, which contain more 40Ar, the contamination is diluted and has insignificant effects.”

    Other statements like this… ” A few thousand years are not enough time for 40Ar to accumulate in a sample at high enough concentrations to be detected and quantified.”

    Tell me what proof is there to support the above statement? What experiment can be done to show this to be true? Should we place known, newly formed rocks at various locations around the world at different depths and conditions as well controlled lab samples and routinely test them every hundred years or so? How could we avoid contamination in digging them up to test? Who could be trusted to keep the equipment clean?

    Has anything like this been done? How else would we know for sure?

    Alex, you say there is proof of an earth older than 10000 years… show me?

  21. on 25 Aug 2014 at 11:30 pm 21.alex said …

    “…dinosaur bones found in “Death Valley” have a cadaverous odour…”

    your proof for the 10,000 year old earth?

    hahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahhahaklollolololoolol.
    rotfl, lmao. heh. heh. heh. guffaw. ho.hohoho.

    stop it! you’re killing me.

    this post just made the top of your shit list: http://goo.gl/5wWrHF

  22. on 25 Aug 2014 at 11:37 pm 22.alex said …

    even if a dinosaur bone was found that’s only 10 years old, how the fuck does that invalidate million year old fossils?

    i’m still laughing at your cadaverous shit… heh, heh.

    even if all atheists are all full of shit and all science is full of shit, how the fuck does that validate your god? still don’t get it do ya?

    once more. even if the theory of gravity is bogus, your god still doesn’t cause planetary motion. do i need to keep going?

    your diversions are old. now, go fuck yourself.

  23. on 26 Aug 2014 at 3:37 pm 23.TJ said …

    “…dinosaur bones found in “Death Valley” have a cadaverous odour…”

    your proof for the 10,000 year old earth?

    No, one of my reasons for doubting alleged ages of fossils. So…

    “even if a dinosaur bone was found that’s only 10 years old, how the fuck does that invalidate million year old fossils?”

    I’m talking about time frames required for fossilisation to occur and you state the above!?

    Comprehension a challenge?

    I made no claims of proof of anything.

    You however, Alex, you say there is proof of an earth older than 10000 years… show me?

  24. on 26 Aug 2014 at 3:59 pm 24.alex said …

    “You however, Alex, you say there is proof of an earth older than 10000 years… show me?”

    you are an idiot. are you going to ask me to prove that light travels at 186,000mps?

    you’re the idiot that asserted that the earth is 10,000 years old, didn’t you. i’ll just say i’m wrong about the earth being older than 10,000 years old, you happy, ya dumb motherfucker.

    your turn. your 10,000 year old proof?

  25. on 26 Aug 2014 at 11:47 pm 25.TJ said …

    “your turn. your 10,000 year old proof?”

    Never made a claim that I had proof. You’ve seen fit to record all my words. Go to your link, check what I said.

    I only claimed a literal reading of biblical text makes the claim. I claimed that I had faith in the Bible based on an overwhelming personal experience, a spiritual revelation of my own personal salvation through Jesus Christ’s sacrifice. I claimed that this was truth relevant to me because I was the one to experience it. I claimed I had no other proof, besides my personal testimony that would be sufficient.

    I also claimed that all scientific theory regarding origins is unprovable and based solely on a belief that God does not exist.

    We also discussed on this site the differences between scientific theory and scientific law.

    By definition of scientific theory, an ability to show processes/attributes ascribed to said theory as unneeded, are grounds for a revision of that said theory. I claimed that this never happens in the sense of moving away from the assumption of no God required.

    I also claimed that scientific origin theory is a belief system. I claimed that I support scientific methods as reliable and useful, but reject the underlying beliefs that drive scientific direction and focus in regard to origins.

    I also claim that God of the Bible is the creator of all things. I also claim to believe that this is an absolute truth.

    I claim that all theory provided to suggest otherwise is full of assumptions and that the evidence, whether for creation, evolution or otherwise are the same. That it is the interpretation of the same evidences based on pre-conceived ideas that makes the difference… not the evidence itself.

    I also claim to be bias in my beliefs.

    You believe nothing, except God is imaginary… and seat belts.

    What happened Alex?

    What made you feel so strongly about God that you completely reject him?

    What stops you from critically thinking your way through the mountains of theory that try to explain him away into non-existence?

    Remember I also claimed to want to discuss the existence of a God. And don’t forget that you are not required to talk to me.

  26. on 27 Aug 2014 at 12:06 am 26.alex said …

    “You believe nothing, except God is imaginary… and seat belts.”

    you are a typical, lying, xtian. show me where I said that? didn’t i say i believed in gravity? didn’t i say i believe in “Ambi”, the ambivalent god? why is your fucked up god making you lie, ya bitch?

    “What made you feel so strongly about God that you completely reject him?”

    wrong again, beeyatch, motherfucker. i dismissively and trivially reject your own personal god just like the rest. puleeze, using “strongly reject” to try to glorify your fucked up god? what what a dumb motherfucker you truly are.

    ask yourself the same question. why do you completely reject allah? you dumb motherfucker?

    did i say you’re a dumb ass, lying, bitch, piece of shit?

  27. on 27 Aug 2014 at 4:25 am 27.TJ said …

    ““You believe nothing, except God is imaginary… and seat belts.””
    My bad, you mention more beliefs and an ambivalent god named “Ambi”.

    ask yourself the same question. why do you completely reject allah?

    Because I believe in the God of the Bible and salvation through Jesus Christ… I thought this was clear?

  28. on 27 Aug 2014 at 11:39 am 28.alex said …

    “Because I believe in the God of the Bible and salvation through Jesus Christ”

    just keep repeating it, you dumb motherfucker. all this crap about not believing in dating methods, ice layers, erosion patterns, and the speed of light is just a bunch of diversions ain’t it? your christ claim ain’t no different than the zeus claim ain’t it? or the allah claim, ain’t it?

    even though the proof for the old earth is readily available, it doesn’t matter to you does it? you cling to your 10,000 year old shit just like the rest of your morons cling to the ark, genesis and the rest of the crap. proof is everywhere and that’s why it’s taught in academia. you want people to believe your 10,000 year old shit, prove it, ya bitch ass, motherfucker.

    you got nothing. now, go fuck yourself, you dumbass motherfucker.

  29. on 27 Aug 2014 at 12:33 pm 29.freddies_dead said …

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

    F&M posting as Dead Freddie said:

    “The implication behind the question was quite clear.”

    True, the implication atheism is illogical and unreasonable and thus the primary reason after multiple centuries it remains a small cult.

    Finally the lying prick confirms using the argumentum ad populum fallacy after previously denying it. We can carry on dismissing his statements regarding the truth of atheism being relative to the number of atheists as the fallacious nonsense they are.

    “offers no supporting argument”

    Only for those who refuse to recognize the processes, logic and order that surrounds all of us.

    I recognise them wholeheartedly but where is the lying prick’s argument that demonstrates said order comes from his God and is why “atheism remains a small cult” (note that he still hasn’t demonstrated that atheism is actually a cult either). Instead he simply asserts it … again and provides no supporting argument … again.

    “George H. Smith says it nicely”

    Fallacious, Appeal to a “so-called” authority who is a part of the cult. Dismissed! lol!!

    And here the lying prick shows his ignorance of the meaning behind certain fallacies. I never claimed that the argument was true because George H. Smith said it. Instead I simply offered up the argument that intelligent design is self-defeating as he presented it, which the lying prick was utterly unable to deal with.

    “if everything is designed you cannot discern design.”

    Completely untrue.

    It’s not but this should be fun…

    I witness the effects of a tornado, hurricane or even an earthquake and recognize an event that brought only chaos, not design.

    Just how does A the lying prick know that those tornadoes, hurricanes or earthquakes bought chaos? He hasn’t yet explained how we can differentiate between what is designed and what isn’t. In fact his worldview states that everything – including these occurrences – were designed by his creator. Or perhaps the lying prick doesn’t think his God has anything to do with tornadoes, hurricanes or earthquakes? If that’s the case why should we accept the need for a creator at all?

    Witness a 150 yr old home that never has a man maintaining the structure and watch what happens after 50 yrs of “Nature the master designer” acting on the structure.

    Here A is still making my point for me. He assumes that nature has actually been designed by his creator but is desperate to retain nature as a reference point from which to discern design. Unfortunately for him he cannot have this cake and eat it too.

    You witness deterioration and destruction. Now when I visit the Guggenheim I recognize design. Dismissed!

    And here A the lying prick simply reasserts his self-defeating argument. Just how does he discern design when apparently everything has been designed by his God? He never answers this question. In fact he singularly fails to show how he can distinguish anything which is designed. His worldview insists that the sand that makes up a beach is every bit as designed as the Chevy he’s found washed up on it.

    “define what he means by “complexity” or “high information””

    I didn’t defined the word “is” either. lol!! The fact you need those words defined says it all!

    This is true hypocrisy at work after he insisted I define my terms earlier in this thread. It’s actually the fact that the lying prick cannot define those words which says it all. He’s read them on some other IDiot’s site and figures they sound good. However, as soon as he’s pressed on what they actually mean he has to back away and try to dodge the question. Just like he’s doing now.

    “demonstrate the existence of any “creation”.

    ROTFL!!!!!!

    This is the funniest of them all! You know, a chimp doesn’t recognize the existence of a creation either. Is it possible dead Freddie is actually “Talking Chimp”? Something to consider.

    Note that the lying prick makes absolutely no effort to actually demonstrate that the existence we experience is a creation. Instead he throws out some red-herring about chimps that doesn’t even address the question let alone answer it. Now that really is something to consider.

  30. on 27 Aug 2014 at 12:47 pm 30.freddies_dead said …

    814.TJ said …

    freddies_dead said

    The rest of that quote:
    “The epistemological corollary is the axiom that consciousness is the faculty of perceiving that which exists—and that man gains knowledge of reality by looking outward. The rejection of these axioms represents a reversal: the primacy of consciousness—the notion that the universe has no independent existence, that it is the product of a consciousness (either human or divine or both). The epistemological corollary is the notion that man gains knowledge of reality by looking inward (either at his own consciousness or at the revelations it receives from another, superior consciousness).”

    …man gains knowledge of reality by looking outward. Then what?

    He doesn’t process and rationalise what he sees from within?

    True, man needs a process as knowledge isn’t automatic. Objectivism states that man uses reason as a way to understand reality abstractly and logically. He becomes aware of reality through his senses and is able to form abstractions that correspond to multiple items at the same time. The ability to grasp reality this way is the essence of reason. Logic is the “art of non-contradictory identification”. Two contradicting ideas cannot be true and if an idea contradicts what we can observe then it must be false.

    When he doesn’t know, he doesn’t look to revelations he receives from another? ie ask someone else.

    Asking someone else is still looking outward at reality and there’s no requirement to accept what they say unless they can show that they came by their answer by objective and logically reasoned means.

    Observation does not provide knowledge without interpretation from within.

    Which is why we have reason to enable us to integrate our observations in a non-contradictory manner.
    —————————————

    “What is this supposed to mean? Are you trying to claim He only created Jesus and everything else just kind of turned up? That seems to disagree quite considerably with the claims made in Genesis.”

    Colossians 1:15-17
    “He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. 16For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities– all things have been created through Him and for Him. 17He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together.”

    How does this answer my question? Your original claim seemed to be that God only created Jesus, a doctrine which contradicts the rest of the Bible. Even the first verse you give us states he’s the “image of the invisible God” not a creation of God. He is the “firstborn” not the “first created”. Firstborn refers to Jesus’ rank.
    —————————————–

    Your statement that I steal from your world-view is stupid and unworthy of comment beyond my initial admit-ion that I was unashamed to admit I didn’t understand your initial statement regarding “Primacy of Existence”… I had to look it up.

    If that is the case then you’ll have no problem accounting for truth when your worldview affirms that consciousness holds primacy over the objects it’s aware of. Please show how the proposition “grass is green” could possibly be considered “true” given your worldview’s affirmation that consciousness is capable of changing the colour of grass at will?

    My claims have not changed since I began here, let alone with the knowledge of your world view.

    I didn’t expect them to. As the saying goes, you cannot reason a person out of a position they didn’t reason themselves into.
    —————————————-

    “Actually the writers of the Bible claim that God was very specific about His identity and nature but they don’t explain how I can distinguish between their God and what they may be imagining either.”

    Why would they feel the need to distinguish their matter of fact statements, written as scripture to their people, who claim to be “Gods people”?

    In what way are their statements “matter[s] of fact”? That suggests that they are true irrespective of what anyone may think, feel, wish etc… but, instead, those statements affirm the Primacy of Consciousness meaning the statements aren’t “matter[s] of fact” but subject to the whim of consciousness. If they would like me to accept those statements (which is, I believe, at least partly the point of making them) it would have been a good idea to demonstrate that their God wasn’t just a figment of their imaginations.

    Why would I claim that I have faith and believe by choice, that which is written in the Bible. And then attempt to convince you I didn’t imagine God?

    So you’re not interested in convincing others that you’re not simply imagining the God you believe in? Your choice.
    —————————————–

    “I do love the way you continuously downgrade your God. ”

    Downgrading from what? I run with what is written of God.

    Where is it written that the future is unknowable to your God? A God that is claimed by the Bible to be all knowing.

    You said…
    “I’ve already said, it is reasonable to say that free will cannot exist in the face of an omnimax deity with a plan, it’s simply impossible for me to freely choose something that goes against what the deity knows/intends will happen. Such a deity is put forward by the Christian Bible and yet it also claims that people have free will. I’m glad this contradiction isn’t my problem.”

    The deity could still give us free will, or it wouldn’t be omnipotent.

    I fully understand that the concept of omnipotence contradicts the concept of omniscience in much the same way that omniscience then rules out free will. However, these aren’t my problems. Theoretically God could give up omniscience to enable us to have free will but then He wouldn’t be omniscient and therefore NOT the God described in the Bible.

    The bible puts forward God’s plan that requires man’s free will as a key factor. Your argument is null.

    Just because your Bible makes the claim that we have free will, there’s no onus on me to accept it, especially when it makes other claims that directly contradict that initial claim. My argument still stands, unless you wish to present us with an answer to the original question “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)?” in a way that doesn’t call either God’s omniscience or our alleged free will into doubt.

    The Bible simply does not put forward a Deity according your claim.

    In what way doesn’t the Bible present an all knowing, all powerful creator of all that exists with a plan?

    The issue is not what the Bible says about such a deity,

    And yet that is where I get my information concerning the Christian God. Is there somewhere else that is a better option?

    the issue is what you have been led to believe and conclude on what the bible says based on either your own interpretation or the interpretations of others.

    On whose interpretations am I supposed to base my conclusions if not my own? Hell, you’ve even said that people should read the Bible for themselves. Now you don’t seem happy with what I’ve found by doing so.

    I’m glad this contradiction isn’t my problem.”

    You’ve failed to show any contradiction in my conclusion so it seems this is not anyone’s problem.

    Unless you can prove your claims from the biblical texts about what they say, why should I believe you and simply not conclude the simplest explanation? That you imagined this God you keep referring to.

    Which claims have I failed to prove?

    That God is all knowing?
    Job 37:15-16 “Do you know how God establishes them, And makes the lightning of His cloud to shine? Do you know about the layers of the thick clouds, The wonders of one perfect in knowledge,”
    Hebrews 4:12-13 “For the word of God is living and active and sharper than any two-edged sword, and piercing as far as the division of soul and spirit, of both joints and marrow, and able to judge the thoughts and intentions of the heart. And there is no creature hidden from His sight, but all things are open and laid bare to the eyes of Him with whom we have to do.”

    That God is all powerful?
    Mark 10:27 “Jesus looked at them and said, ‘With man it is impossible, but not with God. For all things are possible with God.'”

    That He is the creator of all things?
    Isaiah 44:24 “This is what the LORD says — your Redeemer, who formed you in the womb: I am the LORD, the Maker of all things, who stretches out the heavens, who spreads out the earth by myself.”

    That He has a plan?
    Isaiah 46:10-11 “I make known the end from the beginning, from ancient times, what is still to come. I say, ‘My purpose will stand, and I will do all that I please.’ From the east I summon a bird of prey; from a far-off land, a man to fulfill my purpose. What I have said, that I will bring about; what I have planned, that I will do.”

    If you can tell me how I can distinguish between your God and what you may merely be imagining then I wouldn’t have to imagine that God for myself.

    Or are you going to claim I’m stealing your argument again?

    I never claimed you were stealing my argument, I pointed out that you had to steal concepts – in this case “truth” – from my worldview in order to make your own argument.

  31. on 27 Aug 2014 at 10:09 pm 31.TJ said …

    To Alex,
    Go on then, tell me what I should know about our origins then… what do you believe?

  32. on 27 Aug 2014 at 10:47 pm 32.TJ said …

    To freddies_dead,

    All the Bible quotes you use do not detract from a God of Omniscience. The quotes you use either illustrate Gods full knowledge of the natural laws and workings of the creation, his ability to see all and judge the thoughts and actions of men… not direct them or judge before they happen and his ability to impose his own will regardless.

    Look you nailed it right here…
    “On whose interpretations am I supposed to base my conclusions if not my own? Hell, you’ve even said that people should read the Bible for themselves.”

    Yep. I’ve discussed my interpretation and you’ve discussed yours. I highly respect you on this alone. I don’t ask anything more of you, unless you have a theory on origins you would like to share.

    It’s not easy to express your beliefs, it leaves you vulnerable and exposed.

    I appreciate your ability to show reason and common decency in discussion. We may not agree but who’s to say who’s right and who’s wrong? I have faith in my claims and without a relevant “spiritual” experience I don’t expect anyone to understand the impact of such an experience. I certainly didn’t prior to mine.

    So cheers mate. There’s not much else to it. Everything else would be me speculating and twisting things to suit my statements. Faith is faith and scepticism in all things is healthy. Best of luck and God bless you.

  33. on 28 Aug 2014 at 1:31 am 33.A The Prickly Science Guy said …

    F&M posting as Dead Freddie said”

    “Finally the lying prick confirms using the argumentum ad populum fallacy after previously denying it.”

    True…..not the accepted definition but your wrong definition. You don’t recognize argument from an observation. That’s your problem…:)

    “I recognise them wholeheartedly but where is……..argument that demonstrates said order comes from his God”

    Left out F&M ugliness :), but here F&M lies. He does not recognize that order, information and complexity must come from intelligence. This has been demonstrated many times and daily.

    “I never claimed that the argument was true because George H. Smith said it. \”

    Again,,,,I was using your definitions :). Quite funny you took it seriously….lol!!!! Anywho, his observations add nothing.

    “He hasn’t yet explained how we can differentiate between what is designed and what isn’t”

    LOL!!!!!!! Now this is quite funny. F&M are you telling us if you walk into the Guggenheim you would not be able to figure out it was designed? seriously? It’s not obvious to you?

    ROTFL!!!!!!!! You really must be a chimp since they cannot discern that either! DNA is highly complex, like the Guggenheim, it needs a programmer there slick! lol!!!!

    “He assumes that nature has actually been designed by his creator but is desperate to retain nature as a reference point from which to discern design.”

    lol!!!!! huh???

    “apparently everything has been designed by his God?”

    HUH? I never said any such thing. God created the Universe, man created the Guggenheim, Macs, televisions, etc, etc, etc,. Yes, good created most men with the ability to think and produce, accept for talking chimps…lol!!!!

  34. on 28 Aug 2014 at 3:51 pm 34.freddies_dead said …

    833.A the lying reick posting as A The Prickly Science Guy said …

    F&M posting as Dead Freddie said”

    “Finally the lying prick confirms using the argumentum ad populum fallacy after previously denying it.”

    True…..not the accepted definition but your wrong definition.

    Note that the lying prick doesn’t actually show my definition is wrong – because it’s not. What I gave is the accepted definition of the argumentum ad populum. Of course he’s using the fallacy backwards i.e. claiming that few people are atheists therefore atheism must be wrong.

    You don’t recognize argument from an observation. That’s your problem…:)

    The lying prick is wrong as usual. His initial argument was that atheism is wrong based on his observation that atheism has relatively few adherents – a classic argument from numbers – although he has since tried to turn it around to say there are few atheists because it’s wrong. Of course he’s not once tried to support this new argument with any objective evidence either so we can dismiss it just as easily as we dismissed his earlier fallacious claim.

    “I recognise them wholeheartedly but where is……..argument that demonstrates said order comes from his God”

    Left out F&M ugliness :), but here F&M lies.

    Not at all.

    He does not recognize that order, information and complexity must come from intelligence.

    Because the lying prick has singularly failed to make any such argument. You’d think he’d realise that simply asserting something isn’t the same as making a reasoned argument for it.

    This has been demonstrated many times and daily.

    Note that the lying prick fails to say where and by whom. If it was that common he’d surely be able to point to one of these demonstrations.

    “I never claimed that the argument was true because George H. Smith said it. \”

    Again,,,,I was using your definitions :) Quite funny you took it seriously….lol!!!!.

    To what definitions is A the lying prick referring to here? The supposedly “wrong” one from earlier that he failed to show was wrong? What does the argumentum ad populum have to do with the lying prick bringing up a fallacy – that of the appeal to authority – that couldn’t actually be levelled at what I said. And whether it was meant in jest or not there’s no reason why I shouldn’t demonstrate that it was flat out wrong, which I did.

    Anywho, his observations add nothing.

    Then why hasn’t A shown us how those observations add nothing? Once more, simply asserting it isn’t the same as presenting an argument. I say it’s because he doesn’t have an argument.

    “He hasn’t yet explained how we can differentiate between what is designed and what isn’t”

    LOL!!!!!!! Now this is quite funny.

    It is isn’t it? You claim intelligent design but can’t show us how to tell if something is designed or not because your worldview takes away the natural world as a reference point. I think the fact that your argument is self-defeating is fucking hilarious.

    F&M are you telling us if you walk into the Guggenheim you would not be able to figure out it was designed? seriously? It’s not obvious to you?

    Of course it’s obvious to me. My worldview allows me to compare the contents of the Guggenheim to things that are the result of natural processes and list observations which show the differences between the two which result in my being able to infer design. A the lying prick doesn’t have that luxury as his worldview insists that the blades of grass outside the Guggenheim are every bit as “designed” as the things contained within. He can claim design all he likes but his worldview has taken away the one thing he could use to demonstrate the truth of that claim.

    ROTFL!!!!!!!! You really must be a chimp since they cannot discern that either! DNA is highly complex, like the Guggenheim, it needs a programmer there slick! lol!!!!

    How does A the lying prick know that the Guggenheim is designed? He lost his “non-designed” reference point when he professed his belief in intelligent design. His worldview insists everything is designed, whether that be the Guggenheim or the grass outside it. So the only way to show that his worldview is actually true would be to present us with the evidence that his designer exists. Of course we’re still waiting for that evidence while the lying prick keeps pointing at things and asserting that they’re designed. He has no way to prove they’re designed of course, because he’s thrown out nature when he brought in his Designer.

    “He assumes that nature has actually been designed by his creator but is desperate to retain nature as a reference point from which to discern design.”

    lol!!!!! huh???

    Is the lying prick feigning ignorance here? He might be as that’s what someone with a documented history of lying might do. However, let’s unpack it for him. You can only point out “design” when you have a “non-designed” (natural) reference point to work from. We infer design only by how an object’s characteristics differ from something natural’s characteristics – A’s Chevy on the sand analogy for e.g. So when A the lying prick states that DNA shares similar design elements so it must be designed he’s using that ability to differentiate between designed/natural as a reference point. He comes to the conclusion that therefore a Designer exists. Of course if a Designer exists then everything is a result of design. The tornadoes, hurricanes and earthquakes he noted earlier – the ones that he claimed bought only chaos – were actually designed by his Designer. So how can the lying prick say that anything is designed? The “designed” Chevy now has the same characteristics as the “designed” sand it sits upon. He can’t call the Chevy designed as he’s now lost the “natural” elements he was using to differentiate it in the first place. There’s no way to infer design from inside a nature you claim is itself “designed”. Instead you must step outside it and first prove the existence of the Designer … and you can’t use design as part of that proof.

    “apparently everything has been designed by his God?”

    HUH? I never said any such thing.

    So, apparently A’s God didn’t design everything. So, if there are things that exist that do not need a designer then why do we need a designer at all?

    God created the Universe,

    So apparently A’s God did design everything. He seems very confused about what role his God has. I’m not surprised though. This God A is imagining is obviously at the whim of his consciousness so maybe it both did and didn’t create everything. That’s the thing about imaginary gods, they don’t have to conform to logic.

    man created the Guggenheim, Macs, televisions, etc, etc, etc,.

    Did man create the Guggenheim, Macs, televisions, etc, etc, etc, in the same way A’s God created the universe? Ex-nihilo? If so we’re back to why do we need a God at all? If not then how do you distinguish the Guggenheim, Macs, televisions etc, etc, etc, from the sand or grass that God designed?

    Yes, good created most men with the ability to think and produce, accept for talking chimps…lol!!!!

    Oh, the irony.

  35. on 28 Aug 2014 at 5:01 pm 35.alex said …

    i asked “why do you completely reject allah?”

    and the moron responded with: “Because I believe in the God of the Bible and salvation through Jesus Christ… I thought this was clear?”

    yet it didn’t keep the motherfucker from asking the bullshit “What made you feel so strongly about God that you completely reject him?”

    “I appreciate your ability to show reason and common decency in discussion. We may not agree but who’s to say who’s right and who’s wrong?”

    but it didn’t keep your motherfucking ass from posting your testimonial garbage, did it? you ain’t no more entitle to spray your shit everywhere than the moronic muslims or scientologists, so go fuck yourself.

    “Go on then, tell me what I should know about our origins then… what do you believe?”

    i’ll bite. i believe that “Ambi”, the ambivalent god created the universe. unlike your moronic, totalistic viewpoint, i can be convinced otherwise and it’s not even hard for your magician hesus. just let the motherfucker levitate. that’s why david blaine is a god.

    since “Ambi” is ambivalent, notice that his behaviour is exactly like a non existant god.

    dumbass.

  36. on 28 Aug 2014 at 9:40 pm 36.A The Prickly Science Guy said …

    F&M posting as the talking chimp bellowed:

    “What I gave is the accepted definition of the argumentum ad populum.”

    Well, you didn’t give a definition and I did not make an argument so you are……Wrong Again! lol!! Imade an observation…..I know its hard Cocoa.

    “Then why hasn’t A shown us how those observations add nothing?”

    The onus is on you to prove your claim. You never did and you fail again. Dismissed! lol!!

    “Worldview allows me to compare the contents of the Guggenheim to things that are the result of natural processes”

    The talking chimp inches closer. He claims he CAN recognize design. Now the Guggenheim cannot even compare in complexity to the workings within a cell. Talking Chimp claims the cell is the result of natural processes? Which ones? Never seen a process that could create the first cell? Is Chimp invoking faith here? And if that is so, why couldn’t the Gug be natural processes? Man is only a natural process, right? We will get no answer……..sigh….

    “How does A the lying prick know that the Guggenheim is designed? He lost his “non-designed” reference point when he professed his belief in intelligent design.”

    I’m not a talking chimp. I recognize design. I lost my “non-designed” reference?
    ROTFL!!!!!!!!!

    “You can only point out “design” when you have a “non-designed” (natural) reference point to work from.”

    Incorrect, you cannot claim something is not designed because you have no proof this is true, a
    AGAIN! lol!! You claim DNA is NOT designed but where is the evidence? How can is be so complex, full of high content coding and be produce from soup? HMMMM? Everything I observe in the world with this amount of complexity IS DESIGNED. Now, prove otherwise.
    If I take a load on lumber and dump it in the backyard, it does not become a house, it is random chaotic and will not produce a house unless a contractor puts plans to the lumber.

    Ouch! You just got used! lol!!!

    “He seems very confused about what role his God has.”

    ROTFL!!!!! Talking chimp again is so confused. OK, follow this Cocoa. God crated the universe, man uses things in that universe to build things like trains, cars, the Gug!

    “Did man create the Guggenheim, Macs, televisions, etc, etc, etc, in the same way A’s God created the universe? Ex-nihilo?”

    That says it all folks, Cocoa cannot find the difference between God creating a universe and man using the resources of that creation to build and create. That is a toughy! lol!!!!

  37. on 28 Aug 2014 at 10:48 pm 37.alex said …

    “I recognize design.”

    lookey here. just like the other dipshit messenger motherfucker, prickface is the self appointed design interpreter. you see some shit? consult the hor and his other brother martin, and the motherfucker will decide if it was designed by god.

    go head readers. post your shit here. the resident hor prickface will respond back and he’ll interpret for you if god designed it.

    what a dumbass.

    even if there was a designer, the god “Ambi” is as much as a designer as the puerto rican god “hesus”, no?

    “You claim DNA is NOT designed but where is the evidence?” you’re right, bitch motherfucker. “Ambi” designed it. so we’re in agreement?

  38. on 29 Aug 2014 at 3:44 pm 38.freddies_dead said …

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

    F&M posting as the talking chimp bellowed:

    “What I gave is the accepted definition of the argumentum ad populum.”

    Well, you didn’t give a definition

    And the lying prick has changed his claim again. Now we’ve gone from me giving a wrong definition to not having given one at all. It should be obvious to anyone following along that I must have given a definition in order for A to claim it was “wrong” so the lying prick is either lying about my definition being wrong (post 807 where I said the truth of something isn’t affected by how many people believe it – which is exactly what an argumentum ad populum claims) or he’s lying about me not giving a definition (Hint: it’s both).

    and I did not make an argument so you are……Wrong Again! lol!!

    This is brilliant. The lying prick has already conceded (in post 813) that the question he posed did indeed imply that atheism is wrong because it has few adherents but now he’s back to claiming he never made the argument at all. Typical dishonesty from the lying prick.

    Imade an observation…..I know its hard Cocoa.

    It might be hard for A the lying prick as he’s having to keep all his lies in line – and failing quite spectacularly as usual – but I’m finding this very easy … and hugely amusing.

    “Then why hasn’t A shown us how those observations add nothing?”

    The onus is on you to prove your claim.

    Firstly, I didn’t make the claim that “his observations add nothing” so A the lying prick is patently wrong here. Where is his attempt to prove the argument I posed wrong? Oh, that’s right, he hasn’t presented one. Instead he attempts to shift the burden of proof to me when the argument put forward is the demonstration that the intelligent design argument is self-defeating.

    You never did and you fail again. Dismissed! lol!!

    As already noted above, the argument is the demonstration. If A disagrees with the argument, he should say what he believes is wrong with it and show how it’s wrong. Instead he seeks to dismiss the argument without actually dealing with it. That’s not going to happen.

    “Worldview allows me to compare the contents of the Guggenheim to things that are the result of natural processes”

    The talking chimp inches closer. He claims he CAN recognize design.

    Of course I can, because I haven’t thrown nature under the bus like the lying prick has. I have that reference point with which to differentiate between that which is designed and that which is natural.

    Now the Guggenheim cannot even compare in complexity to the workings within a cell.

    And A resorts to one of his buzzwords, “complexity”. He repeats it as though it means something. When his worldview insists that the cell is as designed as the Guggenheim, what is this “complexity” supposed to represent? He makes no attempt to define this term in any meaningful way. I believe it’s because he can’t. It’s nothing more than a red-herring to try and deflect from his inability to discern design in the first place.

    Talking Chimp claims the cell is the result of natural processes? Which ones?

    We’ve already had this discussion. My answer was chemistry. However, this is an irrelevant red herring. A is still attempting to dodge explaining how he can discern design in the first place. His worldview insists everything is designed so he has no reference point for comparison.

    Never seen a process that could create the first cell?

    Red herring. I’ll be ignoring all of the lying prick’s red herrings while he attempts to dodge explaining how he can discern design in the first place. His worldview insists everything is designed so he has no reference point for comparison.

    Is Chimp invoking faith here?

    Nope. Red herring. I’ll be ignoring all of the lying prick’s red-herrings while he attempts to dodge explaining how he can discern design in the first place. His worldview insists everything is designed so he has no reference point for comparison.

    And if that is so, why couldn’t the Gug be natural processes?

    Because I can compare the Guggenheim to natural processes and differentiate between their characteristics. The prick has ditched those natural processes in favour of an Intelligent Designer. I’m pretty sure the lying prick understands how he’s screwed here but he has to ignore the cognitive dissonance in order to maintain his worldview.

    Man is only a natural process, right?

    Unless the lying prick can demonstrate that man is designed of course. But we’re still waiting for him to show how he can discern design at all when his worldview insists everything is designed. That means he has no reference point from which to discern design in the first place. Phew, I’m glad this isn’t my problem.

    We will get no answer……..sigh….

    This is an autobiographical statement. A tacit acknowledgement of the cognitive dissonance the lying prick is experiencing. He has no answer to my question regarding how he knows anything is designed.

    “How does A the lying prick know that the Guggenheim is designed? He lost his “non-designed” reference point when he professed his belief in intelligent design.”

    I’m not a talking chimp. I recognize design.

    How does A recognise design? He never actually backs up his claim, just barely asserts it and hopes no-one notices how his claim doesn’t fit with the worldview he professes to hold. Just how does A know that something is designed? Just what is he comparing it to? Remember, his worldview holds that an Intelligent Designer exists who designed the universe i.e. the universe is designed and A no longer has anything to compare against. Instead he has to prove the existence of the Intelligent Designer … and he can’t use the design argument as part of his proof.

    I lost my “non-designed” reference?

    Yes, when A presupposed an Intelligent Designer. Boom! There goes nature as everything now is the result of design. So how does A know anything is designed? He’s simply left asserting his Designer exists and that, as a result, everything is designed. Where’s the evidence of this Designer? We know that he can’t use design as an argument so why should we accept the claim that a Designer exists? A offers nothing.

    ROTFL!!!!!!!!!

    It is funny watching A twist and turn and refuse to offer up any argument as to how he can discern design.

    “You can only point out “design” when you have a “non-designed” (natural) reference point to work from.”

    Incorrect, you cannot claim something is not designed because you have no proof this is true, a

    This is wonderful. Once more A attempts to shift the burden of proof. It is he that claims an Intelligent Designer exists, based on his claim to be able to recognise design. Of course the existence of an Intelligent Designer means he can no longer discern design in the first place. He keeps using this same self-defeating argument over and over again and I’ll just keep pointing it out.

    AGAIN! lol!! You claim DNA is NOT designed but where is the evidence?

    Existence exists. Consciousness exists. To exist is to be something specific i.e. identity. From identity we have the corollaries non-contradiction and the excluded middle. That, coupled with the metaphysical primacy of existence, rules out the possibility of an Intelligent Designer ergo DNA isn’t designed. Now A will deny this – he will not actually make any argument to back up his denial, he will simply assert it is not “true” at which point he’ll be stealing the concept of truth from my worldview in order to deny my worldview. That will be funny.

    How can is be so complex, full of high content coding and be produce from soup? HMMMM?

    How can it be blurtle, full of blartle and be produce from soup? Makes as much sense when the lying prick refuses to define any of his buzzwords. Also, as the soup in A’s worldview is also designed – Intelligent Designer again – how can A differentiate between the designed soup and the designed DNA. We’re still waiting for him to demonstrate how he can discern design at all.

    Everything I observe in the world with this amount of complexity IS DESIGNED. Now, prove otherwise.

    Attempt to shift the burden of proof … again. How does A know that his buzzword “complexity” is evidence of design. After all everything in his worldview is designed, whether it’s “complex” or not. Exactly what is the difference between the “complex” designed objects and the non “complex” designed objects? A offers no explanation as usual.

    If I take a load on lumber and dump it in the backyard, it does not become a house, it is random chaotic and will not produce a house unless a contractor puts plans to the lumber.

    But the lumber is designed. A’s worldview insists on this. How can something that is designed be considered “random chaotic”? Once more A fails to explain this. Instead he continues to claim to be able to recognise the design of a finished house from the design of his “random chaotic” load of lumber. I want to know how but A keeps dodging the issue.

    Ouch! You just got used! lol!!!

    To show how A has absolutely no way of showing how he discerns design. No wonder he’s hurting.

    “He seems very confused about what role his God has.”

    ROTFL!!!!! Talking chimp again is so confused. OK, follow this Cocoa. God crated the universe, man uses things in that universe to build things like trains, cars, the Gug!

    So everything is designed. In which case how does the lying prick discern design? How can he differentiate between the things his God designed and the things designed by man? They are both designed so how can A tell the difference between a Chevy and a piece of eggshell? He still refuses to tell us.

    “Did man create the Guggenheim, Macs, televisions, etc, etc, etc, in the same way A’s God created the universe? Ex-nihilo?”

    That says it all folks, Cocoa cannot find the difference between God creating a universe and man using the resources of that creation to build and create. That is a toughy! lol!!!!

    It does say it all really. It says that A believes his God designed the universe but that he also believes he’s able to distinguish between the designs of his God and the designs of man. I don’t know about you but I’d really like to know how he does that? Maybe A will stop dodging the question and actually explain it …. yeah, I know, not fucking likely.

  39. on 30 Aug 2014 at 2:19 am 39.the messenger said …

    Fred, tell me, if that four year old boy did hear about his dead sister, prior to his operation, wouldn’t he have asked about it?

    P.S., concerning my absence, I’ve been occupied with family events which consumed most of my time.

  40. on 30 Aug 2014 at 2:28 am 40.the messenger said …

    852.freddies_dead, GOD’s true form cannot be seen by anyone but himself (John 1:18(New Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition (NRSVCE)18 No one has ever seen God. It is God the only Son,[a] who is close to the Father’s heart,[b] who has made him known.)) but he takes the form of certain things so that we can speak with him, such as a flaming bush or a Jewish Rabbi (Jesus).

  41. on 30 Aug 2014 at 2:29 am 41.the messenger said …

    852.freddies_dead, GOD’s true form cannot be seen by anyone but himself (John 1:18(New Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition (NRSVCE)18 No one has ever seen God. It is God the only Son,[a] who is close to the Father’s heart,[b] who has made him known.)) but he takes the form of certain things so that we can speak and or interact with him, such as a flaming bush or a Jewish Rabbi (Jesus).

  42. on 30 Aug 2014 at 2:38 am 42.the messenger said …

    860.freddies_dead, the bible is not meant to teach us about how GOD did certain things, it is meant to teach us the moral teaching of GOD, and to contain historical information about the prophets and kings and patriarchs of Israel. That is why the prophets wrote it.

    P.S., the Catholic church has never interpreted the Adam and eve and Noah story as literal. It is a story, written by Moses, to teach the early Jews about certain moral teachings, similar to the parables that Jesus made in the new testament to teach GOD’s moral teachings.

  43. on 30 Aug 2014 at 2:40 am 43.the messenger said …

    860.freddies_dead, the bible is not meant to teach us about how GOD did certain things, it is meant to teach us the moral teachings of GOD, and to contain historical information about the prophets and kings and patriarchs of Israel. That is why the prophets wrote it.

    P.S., the Catholic church has never interpreted the Adam and eve and Noah story as literal. It is a story, written by Moses, to teach the early Jews about certain moral teachings, similar to the parables that Jesus made in the new testament to teach GOD’s moral teachings.

  44. on 31 Aug 2014 at 2:32 pm 44.alex said …

    oh, lookey here. the rapist motherfucker is back.

    “if a man rapes a woman that is not married, he is to bind himself to her(through marrage)..”

    courtesy of messenger. waahhh! out of context! here’s the rest of the dungpile: http://goo.gl/7fbnA4

    you have no credibility, bitchass, motherfucker. why would you be consumed with your shit when your bitch ass god planned it that way?

  45. on 01 Sep 2014 at 2:54 pm 45.freddies_dead said …

    839.the messenger said …

    Fred, tell me, if that four year old boy did hear about his dead sister, prior to his operation, wouldn’t he have asked about it?

    He might, he might not. Did you talk to your parents about every single thing you heard as a 3 year old, I’m pretty sure I didn’t. There’s simply nothing to suggest that because he didn’t mention it before his NDE he can’t possibly have heard about it. See, this is the crux of the issue. There are a number of utterly mundane ways the boy could have learned of his mother’s miscarriage and you’ve yet to give us any real reason as to why we shouldn’t assume one of them before jumping straight to the conclusion that Jesus told him while riding a rainbow coloured horse through Heaven. Especially when you’ve offered no evidence for the existence of Heaven or of rainbow coloured horses for Jesus to ride.

    P.S., concerning my absence, I’ve been occupied with family events which consumed most of my time.

    No need to explain, we all have real lives. I only hope your family events were happy ones but you have my sympathy if they weren’t.

  46. on 01 Sep 2014 at 2:55 pm 46.freddies_dead said …

    840.the messenger said …

    852.freddies_dead, GOD’s true form cannot be seen by anyone but himself (John 1:18(New Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition (NRSVCE)18 No one has ever seen God. It is God the only Son,[a] who is close to the Father’s heart,[b] who has made him known.)) but he takes the form of certain things so that we can speak with him, such as a flaming bush or a Jewish Rabbi (Jesus).

    I’m not sure what this is in response to. The post numbers don’t match up with what I’m seeing i.e. the last post I can see is one from alex numbered 844 starting “oh, lookey here.”. Unless messy can see the future of course…

  47. on 01 Sep 2014 at 2:57 pm 47.freddies_dead said …

    842.the messenger said …

    860.freddies_dead, the bible is not meant to teach us about how GOD did certain things, it is meant to teach us the moral teaching of GOD,

    And what we learn is that “might makes right”. We should do as God says, not as God does and that death is a proper punishment for disobeying your parents or having the temerity to be raped. It’s a pretty horrific moral teaching all things considered.

    and to contain historical information about the prophets and kings and patriarchs of Israel.

    It’s a pretty poor historical text too. Herod never undertook a slaughter of the innocents (Flavius Josephus never mentions it despite chronicling Herod’s abuses quite carefully). Luke puts Jesus’ birth in the reign of Roman governor Quirinius during a census ordered by Augustus, however, both Luke and Matthew claim it was also during the reign of Herod. The problem being that Herod died 10 years before Quirinius’ census took place. Never mind that a universal census of the Roman world under Augustus is unknown outside of the New Testament.

    That is why the prophets wrote it.

    Shame they couldn’t get it right despite alleged divine inspiration.

    P.S., the Catholic church has never interpreted the Adam and eve and Noah story as literal.

    A quick search online turns up “Speaking of the Great flood the Catholic Bible Dictionary says that ‘For much of Christian history, it was accepted unquestioningly as historical’ (The Catholic Bible Dictionary, p.292, Hahn)”. Oh dear.

    It is a story, written by Moses, to teach the early Jews about certain moral teachings, similar to the parables that Jesus made in the new testament to teach GOD’s moral teachings.

    Well the story basically says “Do as I say or I’ll drown you all” it’s a pretty shitty moral teaching to be honest.

  48. on 12 Sep 2014 at 5:05 am 48.JANET MATHER said …

    I WROTE A BIG COMMENT BUT IT DIDN’T GO THROUGH SO I WILL JUST SAY GOD SAVED ME TWICE FROM DROWNING IN THE SNDEHAM RIVER DRESDEN ON AND DETROIT RIVER IN WINDSOR,ON. THAT’S IT PEOPLE, GOD IS REAL(Jesus)
    NOTHING YOU CAN DO ABOUT IT AND BOOK OF REVELATION IS TRUE TOO. HE DID IT BY MIRACLES AND IN THE SNDEHAM I WENT BACK and forth and not by my own will.

Trackback This Post | Subscribe to the comments through RSS Feed

Leave a Reply