Author Topic: This is for YY - Proof of the Existence of a God.  (Read 13691 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Hatter23

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3950
  • Darwins +265/-7
  • Gender: Male
  • Doesn't believe in one more god than you
Re: This is for YY - Proof of the Existence of a God.
« Reply #319 on: October 29, 2011, 10:21:55 AM »


Who's the ignoramus?  I read your link....there is no observational proof or evidence of bacteria evolving into a higher life form.  I did not disagree that there are new bacteria or more robust bacteria, were getting new bacteria probably daily.  You said there are millions (billions?).  You win on that one!  I don't disagree.  So What!   They are still bacteria!!  You yourself state it takes millions of years for evolution to take place, it can't be observed.

It takes the right conditions for sand to be converted into glass. Your proposition states, in essence, "If there is glass...why is there still sand?" That's a demonstation as to why that line of reasoning does not work.



You say: "Which is why we know that Chimpanzees and Bonobos descend from the same lineage of Apes as Homo Sapiens"  No!!!  You say that based on assumptions taken from observations that can prove creation as well.

Prove???? Only in the minds of those that it can only be true, and will cajole, manipulate, assume unproven assertion, and ignore contra-evidence. It was observed first by gross observation, it was then supported by dissection, it was then supported by behavioral observation, it was then supported by fossils, it was then supported by carbon dating, it was then supported by genetics. Every new discipline supports evolution as correct when it is used.


An Omnipowerful God needed to sacrifice himself to himself (but only for a long weekend) in order to avert his own wrath against his own creations who he made in a manner knowing that they weren't going to live up to his standards.

And you should feel guilty for this. Give me money.

Offline Finntroll

  • Freshman
  • *
  • Posts: 28
  • Darwins +1/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: This is for YY - Proof of the Existence of a God.
« Reply #320 on: October 29, 2011, 11:02:32 AM »
I wrote this on my Notepad, because the forum engine seems to have a bug with IE when writing advances under the answering box bottom. It bounces back up. I doubt if I bother to comment anything that has been posted before this. Again I apologize for my grammar, spelling and the typos I make even when writing in my native language. Too lazy to use the Spell Checker :D

Different species perceive the world quite differently. If you were suddenly turned into a bat, you could make no sense of the world with your previous human "split" what things are.

   Why not just use the word "perception" instead of "split"? It becomes vague when you use terms that are don't mean what you're using them for. If you're going to split the world, you're probably a super-villian with a giant laser, whereas someone who perceives the world differently is just focusing on different details.
Maybe I should use some more "official" philosophical terms from the western classical  philosophy. Then my view would be "ontological relativism" against "ontological realism". The latter believes and searches that there is this absolute, non-subjective "one truth" somewhere behind of and separate from how we experience reality. Maybe as Plato's "ideas" hidden from us, maybe in some solid categorizing system like in Aristotle. Maybe in modern reductionism ("subatomic particles are the reality, more real that the objects we perceive", "the mind is only electrical currents" etc) I think that is a religious view and speculative theology. Believing in a thing that can't be proven and measured. THAT would ne "vague". (And now I bet you still don't get what I mean and say sure we can measure things. Things yes, but not that mystical out-there bottom reality that most of Western philosophy searches. I say that it doesn't exist. I say like to the theists: Show me your God)

In my wording I used "split" and "divide". "Slice" would be better. Slicing like a loaf of bread. "Categorize" might be best. (Damn this is not my native language, I can write only "Finglish" using words that first come to mind from my limited vocabulary :D ) A new use for those words yes, but functionally fitting. Happens all the time, nothing vague. Like is the newly found planet Eris (originally Xena) a planet or not. First it was, then they used the mental knife and cut, split, sliced  or recategorized Eris (and Pluto too) from the planets. I am saying that this happens and has happened in everything. More than we realize.

You talking about a super-villain physically splitting the world, sadly tells me that you are like the philosophers I mocked in my "trying to show a two-dimensional creature that the third dimension exists"-parable above. Hopeless. You are just staying in your flat plane, seeing my stuff as "vague" dots that don't mean anything to you.

And why don't I use "perceive" instead of "split" (and divide and slice)? That question betrays too, that you can't understand me even enough to try and negate my view. Hey maybe I really am a genius, and been misunderstood is our lot, because the other people are stupid? I need a beer! :D

(After a 50 cl can of 4.6 % lager. Make that two: )

I don't think that I explain my point badly. Maybe people just are not able to grasp the concept. No words can help then.
I'll try. May this be the last time on this subject from me:
"Perceive" in everyday speech would imply that something is perceived. This something is out there and then the information from it is filtered through various sensory systems and cultural points of view. And so it happens. That is a valid view too. Not arguing against that.

But not at all what I mean when I'm battling typical Western philosophy and it's bogus questions.
"Perceive" tends to beg the philosophical question: "What really exists "an sich" behind our perception"? Enter the ontological realism, Platonism. Aristotle. Enter modern brainy but flatheaded philosophers like Popper who cleverly divided (split!) the world in three and then seems to think he discovered that's how the world really is. Enter the mind-body problem. And all could be easily dealt by using the Occams Razor-wise: If it cannot be seen what is out there beyond the ways of actually seeing it, if we can't measure it, if there is no way to prove even our mind organizes or categorizes the world is more true than the way some other culture or species would do it.... then it is safe to say that  what philosophy searches does not exist. That kind of philosophy is religion. Providing a way to control people morally and politically and pay good money for hordes of philosophers thinking problems that are as real as how many angels fit on a needlepoint. Or in modern philosophy they have seriously formed schools of thought around the question are the natural laws empirical generalizations or logical necessities. It's both, you idiots!

The philosophical arguing on this tread is the same. Full of self created, unnecessary mental knots. Masochism? Stupidity?

Or if you think that there is something out there beyond our view of it or that there is one true way to categorize the world ontologically... who perceives it? You? Some group of philosophers? God? (Now I'm quessing you would answer scientific research and babble about new scientific discovery, still not getting what I mean).

I hear that some time the eskimos had the need for hundreds of colors describing ice. White man perceives and calls tem all as "white".
   It was the type of ice, not its color. We use the word "ice" to encompass everything because we don't need to know its minor properties for everyday use, but since they lived within an environment of ice, they needed to be able to distinguish its properties very quickly since ice made up so much of their environment.
If you have seen Monty Python's "Life of Brian" now you resemble the simple folks who did not understand when Brian tried to tell a parable, emulating Jesus. They started asking questions like what was the name of the man in the parable and hearing he had sons, asking how many of them. Completely unable to understand that the parable is pointing outside the story.

Likewise, ice in my anecdote was just an illustration of my point. Could have used anything, from mountains to subatomic particles. But unlike biblical parallels or typical anecdotes, real mountains or subatomic particles are a part of the story.

(I originally heard that eskimo-stuff as types of ice or rather snow. Lately I read that they had those hundreds of colors for ice too, and that seemed a good example for my use. In Finland we don't have inuits, we have the Sami. But maybe you know inuits or you are an inuit and you know these facts better. But that's totally beside my point!)

   It isn't that they see ice that only exists in their "world", which is what you seem to be implying, but that they are better able to recognize the minutia about ice faster than someone from the equator. It would be possible, however, to point out the differences so another could recognize it. The world the eskimos live in is the same world the Australians live in - because all the hard data is identical. The only difference between our "splits", as you call them, is the details we individually focus on.

   Also; I don't call ice white, I call it clear - usually with a blueish tint.
Yeah, here you go. Proving that you don't understand. All you do is give me straw man arguments.
I ask again: Where were the "details we focus on" when the human species or the culture that just "focuses" on those details as you say, did not exist? Where are they when the human species is gone? Do you understand what the zen-koan: "If a tree falls in the forest and there is nobody there, does it make a sound" tries to show you? We are not just focusing on stuff, we are creating a "split" or categorization which brings these things in existence as separate entities. WE create them when it is useful. Where was "zero" in mathematics before the arabs invented it? You might think that it was always in existence, but really it was a new creation. And yes, where were the "minute details" of whatever that the eskimos recognize.. where were they as SEPARATE ENTITIES before the eskimos recognized them? They were not, nor will they be when the inuit culture is gone. There might come new separate entities or details in ice to recognize, but nobody can see them now, because they have not yet been "split" from the world. And what about the categories for reindeer of the Scandinavian and Finnish Sami people? The reindeer themselves sure don't need it or perceive that way, nor anyone who doesn't herd reindeer. Or is in your metaphysics some cosmic Bank, maybe the Mind of God, that stores these and makes them exist even before they are used? Show that bank to me.

"Hard data being identical" is no proof against my relativistic "splitting" or "slicing" either. Of course the hard data, if being accurate, tells us of the world. But don´t you get that data comes from answering questions, that are not absolute but relativistic according the needs of the culture or species who asks those questions? According to their special point of view, rising drom their needs. It would be philosophical BS again to claim that there is no other reality than is perceived trough the viewpoint of OUR questions. There are limitless angles to ask or collect data. Who are you to claim that some species that sees the world totally differently that us, just has not "recognized" the "hard data" we search through OUR questions? Who made you God?

Our questions to the world being answered first seems to imply, that there really is "something out there" in the philosophical sense. But since we can't perceive or talk about the reality in any way than trough our varied viewpoints and questions asked from them, it is nonsense to claim that there is such secret reality. The reality IS these everyday bits and pieces we gather asking questions from our differing points of views. Not otherworldly, and not forced to a certain way to divide the world. Created and not created by us. Thats why I posted that Gospel of Thomas- quote before. Putting a leg in place of a leg and still making inside outside etc. If Jesus really said what is in Thomas, the poor bastard got badly misunderstood by his stupid pupils.

This is not overreaching like everyone could command what reality is. So when say Fundamentalist Christianity claims that the world is 6000 years old and there was a Biblical flood, they are asking questions that science asks, they are entering the viewpoint and "split" or categorization that science uses. And most often the Christian hypothesis are proven wrong. But they don't care

But there are paraller ways to "split" or "slice" the world.
Take one example more: Discovery of Acupuncture.
Now please don't get pedantic again like with the ice. I have not been acupunctured, I'm not going to and I don't know much about it. This example is just an illustration too. Acupuncture (unlike some New Age shit like homeopathy) has actually proved to work in some medical conditions. Western medicine accepts it. But the western explanation of the phenomena is yet unsure and very complicated. Nerv cells and hormones, reactions to a small amout of irritation and so on. The Chinese have a theory, that a life-force flows through meridians and when the crossing points of these are manipulated, the energy changes direction and the person is healed or feels better. Now, western medicine or physiology can detect no such energy and no meridians. From the western perspective they don't exist, and I agree. They really do not exist when asking questions and slicing the world like we do. But using the western point of view acupuncture propably never would have been invented nor could it be properly used! So I think that the Chinese view is totally as real as ours. Allthough it splits or divides the world so differently than us, that even their "energy" is not our energy. It is not meant to fit among our slicing of the world, it has its own way to do that. The proof of its reality is that acupuncture works. Pragmatic need is the root of all our world views, slicings and dividings. Categorizations of the world are just tools.

Likewise I think some shamanistic practices might be useful and true, as long as they are not taken as direct claims aiming to contradict our physical world view. Art too is a way to understand truths and create new ways of thinking, allthough that idiot Plato despised art because to him it was just emulating what is "Really" real. Many commoners still take art only as pictures and descriptions of the real world. Bad philosophy at work.

Now you propably just think this as some lame "vague" mysticism. You don't get it. Maybe you are just unable? And where has my sixpax disappeared?

Offline Gnu Ordure

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3832
  • Darwins +109/-9
  • Gender: Male
Re: This is for YY - Proof of the Existence of a God.
« Reply #321 on: October 29, 2011, 03:43:44 PM »
 
Hi Velks,
Quote
hey my friendly philosophical ungulate  ;)
Hey, don't bother trying that friendly stuff with me. We wildebeeste have a saying, Beware of Big Cats bearing smiles. It just means they're extra-hungry.

Quote
As far as I know, philosophy isn’t science, in that it can’t be proven, replicated, etc.  Philosophy can say all sorts of ridiculous things because of exactly that, the unprovablity of it.
I'm getting deja vu; we talked about this back in June (in this thread). As I said then:

In Ancient Greece and for centuries afterwards, what is now known as 'science' was the branch of philosophy called Natural Philosophy, ie it dealt with knowledge about the world of nature, as contrasted with other branches such as ethics, metaphysics, logic, politics and aesthetics. Modern science in the West (coinciding with the development of the Scientific Method) began with people such as Bacon and Descartes.

And modern science was further refined by such philosophers as Popper and Godel; in other words, the rules of science are defined by philosophy (philosophers of science, to be precise). 

So, philosophy at its widest is concerned with types of knowledge (wiki: "Philosophy is the study of general and fundamental problems, such as those connected with existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind, and language".). Some types of knowledge, such as that produced by introspection or experience, lie outside the realm of science.


Notice the reference to Logic. Logic is an essential tool of the Scientific Method. Yet it's not scientific itself; it's one of the five major branches of Philosophy. So you're wrong to say that philosophers can 'say anything ridiculous' - they are supposed to be logical.

Quote
Yes, everyone sees a “different” rainbow since we can’t occupy the same position in time/space as another person, but that certainly doesn’t mean that rainbows are hallucinations.
I didn't say that; I'm saying that the experiece of a rainbow is subjectively real, created by the mind of each observer.
 
Quote
Thus, a Red Delicious apple will not show up as vibrant green or plaid to anyone as far as I understand optics, waves, etc.
The perceived colour of an object varies according to the light-source which shines on it, and also on the visual apparatus of the perceiver. People with red-green colour-blindness don't see the "red" apple as you do. Animals without colour vision don't experience it as red at all. Under non-white light, the apple may appear to be other colours.

Imagine that no life-form on earth had developed colour-vision. In which case, the sky would not be 'blue' and grass would not be 'green', as those experiences would not exist. There would still be electromagnetic radiation of varying wavelengths, but no colours.

Quote
You want to claim that thoughts are reality and thus that means that anything that springs from the brain is reality.
Your sense of Self, the essence of what it feels like to be Velkyn, the most important part of your personal reality, springs from your brain. Your entire experience of the world, colours and all, is likewise created by your brain. And that's your reality.

Consider Jdawg70's question:
Quote
I'm going to go ahead and throw another question out there, which is basically a food-for-thought exercise.  If there were no living beings in the entirety of existence (say, like a vacuum metastability catastrophe occurs and all livings things stop being alive), would god still exist?
If the Earth was destroyed tomorrow (and if no life exists elsewhere), the Universe would literally disappear. If there was no life, the universe would be invisible, silent, formless, tasteless, odourless and untouchable. It would be insensate, and therefore ineffable. And it would have no parts, because there would be nobody to do the parting (or 'splitting', as Finntroll says, if I understand him correctly).

That is what pantheists call The One, or The Ultimate Ground of Being (Paul Tillich's term), or The Original Face (in Zen).

Jdawg70's question is like the Zen koan, What did your face look like before your parents were born?  About which the Zen teacher Mumon wrote:

You cannot describe it or draw it,
You cannot praise it enough or perceive it.
No place can be found in which
To put the Original Face;
It will not disappear even
When the universe is destroyed.


I imagine you tutting as you read this, Velks.  :) This metaphysical stuff isn't your cup of tea, is it? Oh, well... If you want to dismiss what I'm saying as the ramblings of an old wildebeeste who spent too much of his youth chomping on the magic mushrooms of the high veldt, I won't blame you. 
« Last Edit: October 29, 2011, 04:13:32 PM by Gnu Ordure »

Offline Gnu Ordure

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3832
  • Darwins +109/-9
  • Gender: Male
Re: This is for YY - Proof of the Existence of a God.
« Reply #322 on: October 29, 2011, 03:51:31 PM »
[off-topic] Finntroll:
Quote
I wrote this on my Notepad, because the forum engine seems to have a bug with IE when writing advances under the answering box bottom. It bounces back up.
I think that's to do with the setting of the Compatability View button, which you'll find on the top line of your screen immediately to the left of the Refresh button. Click it once to change it, then try posting again.

Offline Gnu Ordure

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3832
  • Darwins +109/-9
  • Gender: Male
Re: This is for YY - Proof of the Existence of a God.
« Reply #323 on: October 29, 2011, 07:13:21 PM »
Hi GB:
Quote
Quote
I cannot experience your experience. You cannot experience mine. Both are real. (If you and I agree that our experiences are similar, we may create another form of reality, Consensus Reality).

And this is where that school of philosophy falls apart. This reduction is simply not supported by any evidence.
I don't see how it falls apart; and I don't see any reduction. Could you clarify?

Quote
It is not a case of “we may create another form of reality, Consensus Reality” it is a case of Consensus Reality is the only one we have.
In my view, there are many Consensus Realities. What's 1+1? In Decimalworld, the answer's 2; in Binaryworld, the answer's 10. Both answers are correct, depending on the consensus of the language being used.

Quote
R. D. Laing. Ah yes, the Ted Haggard and Pat Robertson of psychiatry. Quite frankly, he was a man who either stated the blindingly obvious, or got it wrong. If I continue here, it will be classed as ad hominem.
LOL. So you don't like Ronnie. Whatever; you could still respond to what he said.

Quote
But nevertheless, when I phone a plumber to fix a leak, he does not come round, deliver a box of vegetables and leave.
Sorry, I don't understand your point. A language is a good example of a Consensus Reality; out of thin air, various collections of phonemes (words) are arbitrarily assigned meaning. Homophones and homonyms are occupational hazards (usually resolved by context, which is why plumbers don't repair vegetables).
 
Quote
All this is very interesting if you are having a few beers and short of a discussion topic,
Actually, I'm having a few beers right now, and I am short of a discussion topic... so what's the problem?  ;)
Quote
Yes we do, we know what the reality of 'drink', 'tea' and 'gag' is; we simply react differently and can explain to each other why this is.
Yet our experiences of 'drinking tea' are different. I really have no idea what it's like for you.

Quote
Consensus Reality is the only reality that counts in a functioning society.
And different societies have different consensus realities. Capitalists/Communists. Atheists/Theists. Same planet, different worlds.


Offline kin hell

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 5380
  • Darwins +152/-7
  • Gender: Male
  • - .... . .-. . /.. ... / -. --- / --. --- -.. ...
Re: This is for YY - Proof of the Existence of a God.
« Reply #324 on: October 29, 2011, 09:13:30 PM »

Quote
Consensus Reality is the only reality that counts in a functioning society.
And different societies have different consensus realities. Capitalists/Communists. Atheists/Theists. Same planet, different worlds.



Is not our CR only a construct of the perceived physical world, and everything else is just artifacts of humans as " the ones who describe stuff"?

If we cannot directly experience an other's thoughts then any consensus we have regarding abstractions is even further removed from this CR.
Ideas are not as directly perceptible  (nor as easily evidenced) as the physical world delivering physicality, and I'm not sure they can be said to be a fundamental part of CR.

CR existed well before any language.

Individuals may develop an internal language of self awareness, which would be a necessary precursor to any possible deconstruction of CR,
but if external language (the necessary tool for sharing ideas) had never developed, CR would still be the automatic default operating system.
 

I do not think capitalists have a different CR than communists, they perhaps just have a different doctrine filter overlaying the fundamental shared CR.
"...but on a lighter note, demons were driven from a pig today in Gloucester."  Bill Bailey

all edits are for spelling or grammar unless specified otherwise

Offline plethora

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3457
  • Darwins +60/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • Metalhead, Family Man, IT Admin & Anti-Theist \m/
Re: This is for YY - Proof of the Existence of a God.
« Reply #325 on: October 31, 2011, 05:36:47 AM »
Who's the ignoramus? 

You are.

Quote
I read your link....there is no observational proof or evidence of bacteria evolving into a higher life form. 

That's not what the paper was about. It was about proving that evolution from one species to another species does happen and has been observed in the lab.

Quote
I did not disagree that there are new bacteria or more robust bacteria, were getting new bacteria probably daily.  You said there are millions (billions?).  You win on that one!  I don't disagree. 

New species of bacteria, yes.

Quote
So What!   They are still bacteria!!

I showed you the evolutionary tree of the modern horse over the past 55 million years (which you conveniently ignored by the way). The name of each genus along the evolutionary path is there and they are all well documented in the fossil record.

That proves that evolution from one species to another happens in the Animalia domain (animal kingdom) as well, not just the Bacteria domain.

So what's your response gonna be to this? Let me guess: "So what! They are still animals!!"

 &)

Quote
You yourself state it takes millions of years for evolution to take place, it can't be observed.

I said it can't be observed in real-time. I didn't say there wasn't any evidence for it.

I have provided plenty of evidence of evolution, including a list of transitional fossils which you, in all your intellectual dishonesty, completely ignored.

Quote
You say: "Which is why we know that Chimpanzees and Bonobos descend from the same lineage of Apes as Homo Sapiens"  No!!!  You say that based on assumptions taken from observations that can prove creation as well.  It has not been observed!!! 

No. I explained what DNA is and how it shows our lineage and ancestry. You have not addressed that and instead continue to stomp your feet like a child throwing a tantrum with no argument.

Quote
I may confuse Abiogenesis with evolution, worse yet, you confuse observational science with historical science.  At least we needed Abiogenesis to start evolution.

"Historical science" is a term used by creationists, not scientists. It parts from the preconceived conclusion that there is an intelligent designer and applies all manners of intellectual dishonesty to try and make modern science compatible with a deity.

In real, actual science, we let the evidence lead us to the conclusion... not the other way around like you intelligent design creationists do.

By the way, you also completely ignored my point on you making a Special PleadingWiki fallacy by postulating the existence of an intelligent designer.

If everything that is complex requires a designer and the designer is complex, who designed the designer?

jtp56, I'm done wasting my virtual breath on you. I will use your posts in this thread as an example to others of what an intellectually dishonest, willfully ignorant creationist looks like.
« Last Edit: October 31, 2011, 05:42:02 AM by plethora »
The truth doesn't give a shit about our feelings.

Offline velkyn

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 15420
  • Darwins +169/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • You're wearing the juice, aren't you?"
Re: This is for YY - Proof of the Existence of a God.
« Reply #326 on: October 31, 2011, 10:01:44 AM »
gnu.

damn, I should have not shown so much fang :D 

I know, I know, we’ve discussed this before, Gnu.  It still fascinates me that people can say we have our own “realities”, and it still even more facscinates me that one can claim to believe this and but not be willing to put belief into practice, like grabbing the good ol’ hot iron.

I know that logic can be used by philosophers but logic by itself does nothing in reality by itself.

My self is indeed from my brain.  My brain exists physically and as far as we can tell works on very stable physical laws.  My brain exists no matter what someone else “thinks”.  And I know and will react that hot metal will burn, no matter how subjective my perception is.  And well, whilst not “tutting”, I am laughing at the koan.  I’ll leave you to your mushrooms ;D
"There is no use in arguing with a man who can multiply anything by the square root of minus 1" - Pirates of Venus, ERB

http://clubschadenfreude.wordpress.com/

Offline jtp56

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 406
  • Darwins +4/-66
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: This is for YY - Proof of the Existence of a God.
« Reply #327 on: October 31, 2011, 06:02:44 PM »
Who's the ignoramus? 

You are.

Wrong again.

Quote
I read your link....there is no observational proof or evidence of bacteria evolving into a higher life form. 

That's not what the paper was about. It was about proving that evolution from one species to another species does happen and has been observed in the lab.

Read your paper again.  They are still bacteria.  Your paper lends credence to the creationist view of how everything fit on the Ark and how the differences in the human species exist.  We're still human.  Bacteria are still bacteria.

Quote
I did not disagree that there are new bacteria or more robust bacteria, were getting new bacteria probably daily.  You said there are millions (billions?).  You win on that one!  I don't disagree. 

New species of bacteria, yes.

Quote
So What!   They are still bacteria!!

I showed you the evolutionary tree of the modern horse over the past 55 million years (which you conveniently ignored by the way). The name of each genus along the evolutionary path is there and they are all well documented in the fossil record.

So why does your guy, a leading evolutionist, George Gaylord Simpson, back away from this "proof". He said it was misleading.

That proves that evolution from one species to another happens in the Animalia domain (animal kingdom) as well, not just the Bacteria domain.

Not according to your guy.  Finding different, distinct, animals together is not uncommon in archeological digs.

So what's your response gonna be to this? Let me guess: "So what! They are still animals!!"

 &)

No, just that you have to admit they haven't found the missing link.  Even your guys admit this.  By the way, what have they named this new "species" of bacteria "observed in the lab"

Quote
You yourself state it takes millions of years for evolution to take place, it can't be observed.

I said it can't be observed in real-time. I didn't say there wasn't any evidence for it.

I have provided plenty of evidence of evolution, including a list of transitional fossils which you, in all your intellectual dishonesty, completely ignored.

I have provided plenty of evidence of creation, including your guys admittance that catastrophic events gave us the fossil record.  There was an eye witness to one of these events named Noah.

To bad you haven't studied books of antiquity and the authenticity and accuracy of Biblical History.

Quote
You say: "Which is why we know that Chimpanzees and Bonobos descend from the same lineage of Apes as Homo Sapiens"  No!!!  You say that based on assumptions taken from observations that can prove creation as well.  It has not been observed!!! 

I gotta give you that one, creation was not observed by a fallen man.

No. I explained what DNA is and how it shows our lineage and ancestry. You have not addressed that and instead continue to stomp your feet like a child throwing a tantrum with no argument.

You call me an ignoramus off the bat and accuse me of throwing a tantrum?  DNA is unique within a kind.   

Quote
I may confuse Abiogenesis with evolution, worse yet, you confuse observational science with historical science.  At least we needed Abiogenesis to start evolution.

"Historical science" is a term used by creationists, not scientists. It parts from the preconceived conclusion that there is an intelligent designer and applies all manners of intellectual dishonesty to try and make modern science compatible with a deity.

In real, actual science, we let the evidence lead us to the conclusion... not the other way around like you intelligent design creationists do.

By the way, you also completely ignored my point on you making a Special PleadingWiki fallacy by postulating the existence of an intelligent designer.

If everything that is complex requires a designer and the designer is complex, who designed the designer?

jtp56, I'm done wasting my virtual breath on you. I will use your posts in this thread as an example to others of what an intellectually dishonest, willfully ignorant creationist looks like.


Science is a term used by evolutionists and atheists. To them it uses a preconceived conclusion that there is no intelligent designer and applies all manners of intellectual dishonesty to try and make true science compatible with a "science" being, in itself, a deity.

In real, actual science, we let the evidence lead us to the conclusion... not the other way around like you evolutionists and atheists do.

Evolutionist and atheists make a Special PleadingWiki fallacy by postulating the existence of evidence that does not support their preconceived ideas.

If everything that is complex happened by chance, why are complex things tending to the non-complex.

jtp56, I'm done wasting my virtual breath on you. I will use your posts in this thread as an example to others of what an intellectually dishonest, willfully ignorant creationist looks like.

Plethora,  you certainly do not have a plethora of ideas.  Just a plethora of wasted time.
Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools.

For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.

Offline jtp56

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 406
  • Darwins +4/-66
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: This is for YY - Proof of the Existence of a God.
« Reply #328 on: October 31, 2011, 06:08:03 PM »
gnu.

damn, I should have not shown so much fang :D 

I know, I know, we’ve discussed this before, Gnu.  It still fascinates me that people can say we have our own “realities”, and it still even more facscinates me that one can claim to believe this and but not be willing to put belief into practice, like grabbing the good ol’ hot iron.

I know that logic can be used by philosophers but logic by itself does nothing in reality by itself.

My self is indeed from my brain.  My brain exists physically and as far as we can tell works on very stable physical laws.  My brain exists no matter what someone else “thinks”.  And I know and will react that hot metal will burn, no matter how subjective my perception is.  And well, whilst not “tutting”, I am laughing at the koan.  I’ll leave you to your mushrooms ;D

If you are a paraplegic, your brain will not sense or will you react to a burning iron, no matter how subjective your perception is.
Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools.

For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.

Offline jtp56

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 406
  • Darwins +4/-66
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: This is for YY - Proof of the Existence of a God.
« Reply #329 on: October 31, 2011, 06:59:44 PM »


Who's the ignoramus?  I read your link....there is no observational proof or evidence of bacteria evolving into a higher life form.  I did not disagree that there are new bacteria or more robust bacteria, were getting new bacteria probably daily.  You said there are millions (billions?).  You win on that one!  I don't disagree.  So What!   They are still bacteria!!  You yourself state it takes millions of years for evolution to take place, it can't be observed.



It takes the right conditions for sand to be converted into glass. Your proposition states, in essence, "If there is glass...why is there still sand?" That's a demonstation as to why that line of reasoning does not work.



You say: "Which is why we know that Chimpanzees and Bonobos descend from the same lineage of Apes as Homo Sapiens"  No!!!  You say that based on assumptions taken from observations that can prove creation as well.

Prove???? Only in the minds of those that it can only be true, and will cajole, manipulate, assume unproven assertion, and ignore contra-evidence. It was observed first by gross observation, it was then supported by dissection, it was then supported by behavioral observation, it was then supported by fossils, it was then supported by carbon dating, it was then supported by genetics. Every new discipline supports evolution as correct when it is used.

It is the evolutionist that has to cajole, manipulate, assume unproven assertion, and ignore contra-evidence.  The observation being.........changes within a species?  There is no observation of a new species evolving.  Creationists use changes within a species to prove their arguments!  You guys use it "as the mechanism" for a new species.  Huh?  What's that?

Carbon dating?  Even your guys admit something happened about 4000 years ago that upset that method of dating.

Behavioral....What?  Benevolence would have been wiped out at the first inkling of it per your theory.  Think Hatter, Think.

Fossils support a catastrophic event(s) per your guy.  Study the evolution of your world view from 1920 to 1980.

Genetics?  I love genetic advances.   250 bushel per acre corn when just 15 years ago you'd be lucky to get 125.  Featherless Turkeys....to bad it didn't work, when they finally were able to breed them, they bruised to easily making the meat to damaged.  All the new bacteria!!!!   Wow!!!  To bad nothing has been observed "evolving" into a different species since they started looking for it before Darwin (for your world view anyway).

Name for me Hatter some new disciplines in the last 100 years.

I have a couple of questions for all you evolution geniuses:

How long does it take to make a fossil?

Can soft tissue become a fossil?  Careful, I'll give you a hint on this one.  Your guys love looking at fossilized turds because it gives us evidence of what critters were eating back in the day.
Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools.

For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.

Online jetson

  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 7295
  • Darwins +170/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • Meet George Jetson!
    • Jet Blog
Re: This is for YY - Proof of the Existence of a God.
« Reply #330 on: October 31, 2011, 07:36:47 PM »
Trolling for atheists.  A favorite pastime of many Christians.

Offline plethora

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3457
  • Darwins +60/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • Metalhead, Family Man, IT Admin & Anti-Theist \m/
Re: This is for YY - Proof of the Existence of a God.
« Reply #331 on: November 01, 2011, 06:02:48 AM »
For the record ... I will clarify that the Paleontologist George G. Simpson did not reject that the evolution of the horse happened. He simply dispelled the myth that the evolutionary path had been linear. That's why I included the evolutionary tree that clearly shows a more complex, non-linear progression, which is accurate.

George G. Simpson simply promoted a more accurate picture of how various genuses branched out into a large number of species who were all evolutionary 'cousins' with common ancestry. The modern horse was just the tip of one of the many branches.

It's funny how creationists actually think George G. Simpson rejected the evolution of the horse or evolution as a whole and use him out of context to support their baseless worldview. Talk about shooting yourself in the foot. Pathetic.
« Last Edit: November 01, 2011, 06:04:30 AM by plethora »
The truth doesn't give a shit about our feelings.

Offline velkyn

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 15420
  • Darwins +169/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • You're wearing the juice, aren't you?"
Re: This is for YY - Proof of the Existence of a God.
« Reply #332 on: November 01, 2011, 09:42:45 AM »
Carbon dating?  Even your guys admit something happened about 4000 years ago that upset that method of dating.
Love to see more lies from a theist.  Hilarious. Keep going, jtp, you make a lovely example of what some Christians are.
Quote
Fossils support a catastrophic event(s) per your guy.  Study the evolution of your world view from 1920 to 1980.
And more vague claims and lies.
Quote
Genetics?  I love genetic advances.   250 bushel per acre corn when just 15 years ago you'd be lucky to get 125.  Featherless Turkeys....to bad it didn't work, when they finally were able to breed them, they bruised to easily making the meat to damaged.  All the new bacteria!!!!   Wow!!!  To bad nothing has been observed "evolving" into a different species since they started looking for it before Darwin (for your world view anyway).
  more lies from a Christian preserved for posterity.  It’s just too cute to see a Christian thinking that repeating  a lie will make it magically come true.
Quote
How long does it take to make a fossil? Can soft tissue become a fossil?  Careful, I'll give you a hint on this one.  Your guys love looking at fossilized turds because it gives us evidence of what critters were eating back in the day
Too willfully ignorant to look this up for himself. Sad, really.  Again, a Christian throws shit at a wall in the usual desperate hope that some of it sticks.

Keep trolling, jtp, it does a world of good.
"There is no use in arguing with a man who can multiply anything by the square root of minus 1" - Pirates of Venus, ERB

http://clubschadenfreude.wordpress.com/

Offline Hatter23

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3950
  • Darwins +265/-7
  • Gender: Male
  • Doesn't believe in one more god than you
Re: This is for YY - Proof of the Existence of a God.
« Reply #333 on: November 01, 2011, 11:34:43 AM »


Who's the ignoramus?  I read your link....there is no observational proof or evidence of bacteria evolving into a higher life form.  I did not disagree that there are new bacteria or more robust bacteria, were getting new bacteria probably daily.  You said there are millions (billions?).  You win on that one!  I don't disagree.  So What!   They are still bacteria!!  You yourself state it takes millions of years for evolution to take place, it can't be observed.



It takes the right conditions for sand to be converted into glass. Your proposition states, in essence, "If there is glass...why is there still sand?" That's a demonstation as to why that line of reasoning does not work.



You say: "Which is why we know that Chimpanzees and Bonobos descend from the same lineage of Apes as Homo Sapiens"  No!!!  You say that based on assumptions taken from observations that can prove creation as well.

Prove???? Only in the minds of those that it can only be true, and will cajole, manipulate, assume unproven assertion, and ignore contra-evidence. It was observed first by gross observation, it was then supported by dissection, it was then supported by behavioral observation, it was then supported by fossils, it was then supported by carbon dating, it was then supported by genetics. Every new discipline supports evolution as correct when it is used.

It is the evolutionist that has to cajole, manipulate, assume unproven assertion, and ignore contra-evidence.  The observation being.........changes within a species?  There is no observation of a new species evolving.  Creationists use changes within a species to prove their arguments!  You guys use it "as the mechanism" for a new species.  Huh?  What's that?



http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

Not that you are going to bother. You just can't accept the simple fact of evolution. It has been observed and documented. Disciplines in the past 100 years...several I mentioned...but you cannot think outside of the Godbox...can you? You are just absolutely positively committed to your faerie tale of the Judeo-Christian triomni impossible being.
An Omnipowerful God needed to sacrifice himself to himself (but only for a long weekend) in order to avert his own wrath against his own creations who he made in a manner knowing that they weren't going to live up to his standards.

And you should feel guilty for this. Give me money.

Offline Avatar Of Belial

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 499
  • Darwins +30/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm not an Evil person; I just act like one!
Re: This is for YY - Proof of the Existence of a God.
« Reply #334 on: November 01, 2011, 02:40:57 PM »

Warning: Long post - most of this is to Finn(the)troll, but I respond briefly to Gnu at the bottom.


I wrote this on my Notepad, because the forum engine seems to have a bug with IE when writing advances under the answering box bottom. It bounces back up. I doubt if I bother to comment anything that has been posted before this. Again I apologize for my grammar, spelling and the typos I make even when writing in my native language. Too lazy to use the Spell Checker :D

Oh, I see your problem... you're using IE!
/firefox
(Just kidding  :P)

Quote
Maybe I should use some more "official" philosophical terms from the western classical  philosophy. Then my view would be "ontological relativism" against "ontological realism". The latter believes and searches that there is this absolute, non-subjective "one truth" somewhere behind of and separate from how we experience reality. Maybe as Plato's "ideas" hidden from us, maybe in some solid categorizing system like in Aristotle. Maybe in modern reductionism ("subatomic particles are the reality, more real that the objects we perceive", "the mind is only electrical currents" etc) I think that is a religious view and speculative theology. Believing in a thing that can't be proven and measured. THAT would ne "vague". (And now I bet you still don't get what I mean and say sure we can measure things. Things yes, but not that mystical out-there bottom reality that most of Western philosophy searches. I say that it doesn't exist. I say like to the theists: Show me your God)

Actually, what you should have predicted me saying is that this describes what I see you talking about. You can't prove these "extra realities" that exist in our separate "slices", whereas I rely on the fact that all perceptions or differences people end up talking about can be traced back to some physically measurable property. Like your example with the bat and a person switching places; the person will not be able to make sense of his/her surroundings because the chemical signals, the internal translation of received input, and the priority of sound over sight are not what a human mind has evolved to interpret. These are objective facts, showing only that our perception is nothing more than what we objectively are. Our "experience reality" as you call it is 100% reliant on the world around us that we share with everyone else. Meanwhile, you propose some "individual realities" that cannot be seen or proven, yet somehow can result in exactly what we have whether or not it's there. When it comes to your "slices" I say that they probably don't exist. Like I say to the theists: Show me your God.

Quote
In my wording I used "split" and "divide". "Slice" would be better. Slicing like a loaf of bread.

Well now you're just a super-villian with a giant knife instead of a giant laser.  &)

Quote
Like is the newly found planet Eris (originally Xena) a planet or not. First it was, then they used the mental knife and cut, split, sliced  or re-categorized Eris (and Pluto too) from the planets. I am saying that this happens and has happened in everything. More than we realize.
But did something about the planetoid itself change because they call it something different? Did it change in size or mass? Did it turn a different color? No, don't be silly. It's is exactly what it had been before, but we call it something different. "A rose by any other name would smell as sweet." So to speak.

Quote
You talking about a super-villain physically splitting the world, sadly tells me that you are like the philosophers I mocked in my "trying to show a two-dimensional creature that the third dimension exists"-parable above. Hopeless. You are just staying in your flat plane, seeing my stuff as "vague" dots that don't mean anything to you.
Really? Can't even take a joke...

But yes, I see your stuff as "vague" and meaningless. Why shouldn't I? It's extraneous, and thus like religion it gets discarded because there is no proof for it.

Quote
Hey maybe I really am a genius, and been misunderstood is our lot, because the other people are stupid?

Yes, Charlie, you really are a gene-ass and as soon as you undergo the same operation as the mouse you may even be able to explain yourself properly!

Quote
I don't think that I explain my point badly. Maybe people just are not able to grasp the concept. No words can help then.

Or maybe the concept doesn't make sense in the first place. It's all a jumble floating around in your head - orderless, formless, and most of all meaningless. You've taken a liking to the idea (because it's yours) and try to fit your justifications for it into the real world where they fit like pieces from the wrong puzzle.


Quote
And all could be easily dealt by using the Occams Razor-wise: If it cannot be seen what is out there beyond the ways of actually seeing it, if we can't measure it, if there is no way to prove even our mind organizes or categorizes the world is more true than the way some other culture or species would do it....
[...]
Or if you think that there is something out there beyond our view of it or that there is one true way to categorize the world ontologically... who perceives it? You? Some group of philosophers? God? (Now I'm quessing you would answer scientific research and babble about new scientific discovery, still not getting what I mean).

At this point I must wonder if even you are getting what you mean ("Of course I do! I'm the one who made it up!", he cries). Occam's Razor cuts away that which is unnecessary. An individual's perception is unnecessary, as is his culture's. There may not be anyone to observe the majority of the universe, but that doesn't mean the majority of the universe doesn't exist. It doesn't change itself to fit our perceptions, splits, slices, flicks, or dingdongs of it either way, it doesn't care in the least!

It isn't that one group's perception is right and everybody else is wrong; it's that nobody has it right, but we find there are things that are consistent and ultimately objective. Like I say to the theists; we use science to discard the oddities of our flawed perceptions because we have consistently shown that we can objectively find and measure things about the world without needing to invoke some unknown "thing", be it a God or a different reality. Until and unless such a thing can be proven or somehow shown to affect the objective reality we live in, there is no need to even consider it.

Quote
If you have seen Monty Python's "Life of Brian" now you resemble the simple folks who did not understand when Brian tried to tell a parable, emulating Jesus. They started asking questions like what was the name of the man in the parable and hearing he had sons, asking how many of them. Completely unable to understand that the parable is pointing outside the story.


Well, why not? The parable itself was pretty boring.

Nice to know we're already at the stage where insulting people is supposed to convince them.

Quote
Yeah, here you go. Proving that you don't understand. All you do is give me straw man arguments.
I only follow your example.


Quote
I ask again: Where were the "details we focus on" when the human species or the culture that just "focuses" on those details as you say, did not exist? Where are they when the human species is gone? Do you understand what the zen-koan: "If a tree falls in the forest and there is nobody there, does it make a sound" tries to show you? We are not just focusing on stuff, we are creating a "split" or categorization which brings these things in existence as separate entities. WE create them when it is useful.

The "details we focus on" are right there in the snow or ice. They are simple factoids about it that can be objectively pointed out. They still exist if no one looks at them, just as the falling tree still creates the sound waves. If someone is there or if no one is there, the sound waves are still created. The clarity, thickness, density of the ice is still there whether there is a person there or not. Those are the minute details that we notice and make our distinctions on. Whether you acknowledge, notice, or question their existence or not does not change these details - they are there. If the tree falls while no-one is there and we come back at a later time we will see the actual results. The shockwave created when that tree falls will have effects other than vibrating eardrums (thus causing sound). If we aren't there when it happens we will be able to see the change that resulted from it when we come back. Our perception is 100% reliant on these facts and entirely predictable when given all the details of the scenario.

In other words: Your experience doesn't matter. Nor does mine, nor anyone else's.

Quote
Where was "zero" in mathematics before the arabs invented it? You might think that it was always in existence, but really it was a new creation.

It's a label. Did "one" always exist? How about "two"? "Five"? Five what is the question. Zero of what? Zero of whatever is still whatever's nonexistence - we just gave it a name. A thing not-existing didn't suddenly gain more nonexistence. That doesn't even make sense, yet that is what you imply by saying that "zero" suddenly started "existing". How we label things does not affect those things. How we perceive those things does not affect those things, nor their lack of being a thing.

Quote
And yes, where were the "minute details" of whatever that the eskimos recognize.. where were they as SEPARATE ENTITIES before the eskimos recognized them?


I'll give you an example. English has seven different common words for "low-temperature water". Snow, hail, sleet, ice, icicle, slush, and snowflake.

All of these call to mind different things - but they are all low-temperature water. Better yet, the differences are all objective. If there were a person who had a single word that encompassed all of these, both you and I could point out the objective differences between these seven things to him/her and these differences would exist whether or not either of us were there to point them out.

Quote
"Hard data being identical" is no proof against my relativistic "splitting" or "slicing" either. Of course the hard data, if being accurate, tells us of the world. But don´t you get that data comes from answering questions, that are not absolute but relativistic according the needs of the culture or species who asks those questions?
Yes, hard data remains unchanged, but if it doesn't disprove your view, then you shouldn't ask stupid questions like "where are those minute details". They are still there. My point is that these "slices" are entirely reliant on the objective reality that provides this hard data, and we can use hard data to explain the discrepancies between cultures or people because their minds are minor pieces entirely encased within the objective reality in which we live.

-----------

   You keep talking some inane nonsense about a "Western Philosophy's One Truth" like it's some mystical thing; this is the strawman that you keep beating upside the head. You obviously lack the capacity to understand something as simple as: If you can't prove it, shut up about it.

   I have no reason to think your "split" of the world is some extra reality that exists separate from the objective data, and you have not proven otherwise. You are claiming the unneeded excess, therefore Occam's Razor is against you. I claim no mystical "One Truth" that you keep attempting to shove onto me because I hold a neutral position until the actual need to invoke it is shown. We know the objective reality exists. But we lack proof of your "slices". Since the existence of your "slices", like God's existence, cannot be proven - nor shown to have any impact on the objective reality, I discard it as useless have no problem calling it meaningless.

-----------

In my view, there are many Consensus Realities. What's 1+1? In Decimalworld, the answer's 2; in Binaryworld, the answer's 10. Both answers are correct, depending on the consensus of the language being used.

This correction is a nitpick, but it is an important distinction.

In decimal, 1+1 = 210
and in binary, 1+1 = 102
(The correction here is, obviously, the subscript; which denotes which base number we use.)

But this "alternate consensus reality" aligns exactly with the "primary consensus reality" because:
210 = 102!
A different way of expressing the same thing doesn't mean the thing being expressed is actually different. It's as if this "alternate consensus reality" is the "primary consensus reality". It may, in fact, be better to call all of them the objective reality.
"You play make-believe every day of your life, and yet you have no concept of 'imagination'."
I do not have "faith" in science. I have expectations of science. "Faith" in something is an unfounded assertion, whereas reasonable expectations require a precedent.

Offline screwtape

  • The Great Red Dragon
  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 12577
  • Darwins +703/-29
  • Gender: Male
  • Karma mooch
Re: This is for YY - Proof of the Existence of a God.
« Reply #335 on: November 01, 2011, 03:18:04 PM »
jtp,

I'd like to think that this conversation could be more than trading insults.  Your problem - as is the problem of many street preachers I have eaten seen - is you are a condescending, arrogant jerk who only has contempt for those who do not believe as you.  And, to quote your funny book, you reap what you sow.  You aren't acting very christlike. 

I'm not saying these things to insult you or to hurt your feelings.  I am saying them because you may not realize how your behavior is perceived here.  You are ranting and pointing fingers without much of an attempt at explanation or convincing.  It is like you are just here be self righteous and condemn us.


Science is a term used by evolutionists and atheists. To them it uses a preconceived conclusion that there is no intelligent designer...

So creationists and theists don't use the term "science"? 

There is a reason why "intelligent designers" don't come into play in science. 

Once upon a time the universe was thought to have been run by gods.  Some god in a chariot pulled the sun across the sky.  Another the moon.  Others handled fertility, etc.  But after a while people noticed that the sun, moon and reproduction followed very rigid and predictable patterns.  They used math to express those patterns and called them "laws".  So, if gods are still hauling the celestial bodies across the skies, they are doing it according to fixed schedules they apparently cannot change, and so are not actually agents.  They are just along for the ride.

Do you understand the connection?  If god is in science, then there is no science.  Science is not about describing things by the actions of inscrutable beings.  It is about finding the patterns and describing them with math.   An agent, like a god, is not predictable.  It is not patternable.  You cannot describe it's whims with math.   

the rest of your post was a pointless waste of time.  Show me you can intelligently address ^this^ and we'll go from there.


« Last Edit: November 03, 2011, 01:00:34 PM by screwtape »
Links:
Rules
Guides & Tutorials

What's true is already so. Owning up to it does not make it worse.

Offline RaymondKHessel

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1914
  • Darwins +73/-3
  • Gender: Male
  • Born with insight, and a raised fist.
Re: This is for YY - Proof of the Existence of a God.
« Reply #336 on: November 01, 2011, 08:16:34 PM »
jtp56, I'm done wasting my virtual breath on you. I will use your posts in this thread as an example to others of what an intellectually dishonest, willfully ignorant creationist looks like.

No need hombre! He looks a lot like this guy.



Well, back in the 70's he did. Only the hair and nose were more red.

Nowadays I get the impression it's probably a little more like



"I'll GET you, science! And your little dog, too!"



Hmm... I'm not helping, am I? My bad.  :-\
« Last Edit: November 01, 2011, 08:27:58 PM by RaymondKHessel »
Born with insight, and a raised fist.

Offline plethora

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3457
  • Darwins +60/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • Metalhead, Family Man, IT Admin & Anti-Theist \m/
Re: This is for YY - Proof of the Existence of a God.
« Reply #337 on: November 02, 2011, 04:56:55 AM »
Hmm... I'm not helping, am I? My bad.  :-\

Made me 'lol' ... that's help enough :D
The truth doesn't give a shit about our feelings.

Offline Joetruth2

  • Freshman
  • *
  • Posts: 31
  • Darwins +1/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: This is for YY - Proof of the Existence of a God.
« Reply #338 on: November 10, 2011, 08:17:23 PM »
 
"Any formal attack on ignorance is bound to fail
because the masses are always ready to defend
their most precious possession -- their ignorance."
-- Hendrick van Loon