Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Guest Keith- Marshall,Mo

Wating for 2smart to answer.

Recommended Posts

Guest Keith- Marshall,Mo

QUOTE(2smart4u @ Jun 4 2007, 07:38 AM)

It's amazing to me the way atheists use the bible to disprove God. Most intelligent people understand there are passages in the bible that aren't to be taken literally. But Paul (who knows everything and is never wrong) doesn't get that.

Oh really.

Why don't you tell us which passages of the bible are to be taken literally and which passages are not to be taken literally and why that is the case. So, you mean you can pick and choose what parts of the bible you believe in and which you don't? How can that be? How can you have it both ways? Either you have faith or you dont, right? So what your saying is that you're either a part time atheist or a part time christian. Would that be correct? Given your flair for hypocrisy I would have to say that you are probably more christian than atheist

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guest
QUOTE(2smart4u @ Jun 4 2007, 07:38 AM)

It's amazing to me the way atheists use the bible to disprove God.  Most intelligent people understand there are passages in the bible that aren't to be taken literally.  But Paul (who knows everything and is never wrong) doesn't get that.

Oh really.

Why don't you tell us which passages of the bible are to be taken literally and which passages are not to be taken literally and why that is the case. So, you mean you can pick and choose what parts of the bible you believe in and which you don't? How can that be? How can you have it both ways? Either you have faith or you dont, right? So what your saying is that you're either a part time atheist or a part time christian. Would that be correct? Given your flair for hypocrisy I would have to say that you are probably more christian than atheist

Keith, you're trying to reason with people who aren't interested in reason. They're only interested in the ultimate truth, on which they own a patent. Didn't you know that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest 2smart4u
QUOTE(2smart4u @ Jun 4 2007, 07:38 AM)

It's amazing to me the way atheists use the bible to disprove God.  Most intelligent people understand there are passages in the bible that aren't to be taken literally.  But Paul (who knows everything and is never wrong) doesn't get that.

Oh really.

Why don't you tell us which passages of the bible are to be taken literally and which passages are not to be taken literally and why that is the case. So, you mean you can pick and choose what parts of the bible you believe in and which you don't? How can that be? How can you have it both ways? Either you have faith or you dont, right? So what your saying is that you're either a part time atheist or a part time christian. Would that be correct? Given your flair for hypocrisy I would have to say that you are probably more christian than atheist

Sorry Keith, I don't have the time or inclination to go through the bible and pick out the passages that I don't personally believe. You can use your judgement to decide for yourself. Of course, If you're an atheist, it's all a fraud to you so don't waste your time. I have my faith and you have yours. You believe in Mother Nature , happenstance and serendipity. I believe in intelligent design.

When you Darwiniacs can explain how the universe "evolved" I'll listen. Until then I'm on the God Squad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guest
Sorry Keith, I don't have the time or inclination  to go through the bible and pick out the passages that I don't personally believe. You can use your judgement to decide for yourself.  Of course, If you're an atheist, it's all a fraud to you so don't waste your time. I have my faith and you have yours. You believe in Mother Nature , happenstance  and  serendipity. I believe in intelligent design.

    When you Darwiniacs can explain how the universe "evolved" I'll listen. Until then I'm on the God Squad.

Keith's challenge was a challenge to self-scrutiny. On its face, the claim that the Bible is God's word, but some passages are literally true while others are not, raises the question "how do we decide which passages belong in each category." The least a thinking person would do is offer a set of criteria and an example or two from the Bible illustrating each category (with an appropriate explanation), but of course there aren't any criteria that won't destroy the literalist's claims wholesale, and since 2dim is right about everything stooping to offer any examples is out of the question. But that's OK, because 2dim4words, along with a great many other biblical literalists, doesn't understand any of this, illustrating by his own example the old saying that ignorance is bliss.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guest
Sorry Keith, I don't have the time or inclination  to go through the bible and pick out the passages that I don't personally believe. You can use your judgement to decide for yourself.  Of course, If you're an atheist, it's all a fraud to you so don't waste your time. I have my faith and you have yours. You believe in Mother Nature , happenstance  and  serendipity. I believe in intelligent design.

    When you Darwiniacs can explain how the universe "evolved" I'll listen. Until then I'm on the God Squad.

That should be semi-literalist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guest
Sorry Keith, I don't have the time or inclination  to go through the bible and pick out the passages that I don't personally believe. You can use your judgement to decide for yourself.  Of course, If you're an atheist, it's all a fraud to you so don't waste your time. I have my faith and you have yours. You believe in Mother Nature , happenstance  and  serendipity. I believe in intelligent design.

    When you Darwiniacs can explain how the universe "evolved" I'll listen. Until then I'm on the God Squad.

The universe didn't evolve. Species of living organisms evolve.

Science doesn't begin with final answers. In fact, in science no answer is ever final. All scientific truths are subject to change based on additional information. That is one of the main features distinguishing it from most and perhaps all of the theisms. You would think that by the year 2007 on the Western calendar people capable of typing and sending entries on a computer would be aware of science's track record of progress, and understand why that way of looking at things is best for a relatively large-brained species on Earth whose ability to conceive of answers typically outruns its capacity to obtain them legitimately. Tragically, though, the will to believe overpowers reason, and so we are left with perhaps billions of people on this planet who think they know the final answers when in fact they don't know anything beyond their own biases.

There are books out there to read on the origins of the universe. Books on cosmology and astronomy and related subjects. These books give the best explanations we have for the origins of the universe, but you have to read them before making up your mind --- or at least open your mind long enough and wide enough to receive what they have to say, not just read a few of the words and toss the book aside, but truly read what is being said. There are excellent series on PBS, but of course some people are 2smart to watch them. You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Keith-Marshall,Mo
Sorry Keith, I don't have the time or inclination  to go through the bible and pick out the passages that I don't personally believe. You can use your judgement to decide for yourself.  Of course, If you're an atheist, it's all a fraud to you so don't waste your time. I have my faith and you have yours. You believe in Mother Nature , happenstance  and  serendipity. I believe in intelligent design.

    When you Darwiniacs can explain how the universe "evolved" I'll listen. Until then I'm on the God Squad.

You're the one who said:

"Most intelligent people understand there are passages in the bible that aren't to be taken literally"

Then you said:

"I don't have the time or inclination to go through the bible and pick out the passages that I don't personally believe"

So after all that you can't even name one passage off the top of your head?

Interesting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sorry Keith, I don't have the time or inclination  to go through the bible and pick out the passages that I don't personally believe. You can use your judgement to decide for yourself.  Of course, If you're an atheist, it's all a fraud to you so don't waste your time. I have my faith and you have yours. You believe in Mother Nature , happenstance  and  serendipity. I believe in intelligent design.

    When you Darwiniacs can explain how the universe "evolved" I'll listen. Until then I'm on the God Squad.

"Evolution" as employed by Darwin (or Darwiniacs, if you prefer) is the term applied to changes in the species composition of the Earth over time, driven by the decidedly non-random process of natural selection. It is a foundational principle of biology, not cosmology.

Life has not (at least up to this point) been confirmed outside of Earth. Even you must admit that there is much more to the universe than Earth, so "evolution" is hardly the term you should be using to chastize atheists for explaining changes in the universe over time.

Unfortunately, our current president and several of the Republican presidential candidates can't seem to get that one straight, either.

If they (and you) continue to try to legitimize pseudoscience like intelligent design, the least you could do is start the discussion with some evidence of basic scientific intelligence. Otherwise, you are just "designed" to look foolish.

Extra credit question: How do you pronounce "nuclear"? (Just don't ask Mr. Bush.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sorry Keith, I don't have the time or inclination  to go through the bible and pick out the passages that I don't personally believe. You can use your judgement to decide for yourself.  Of course, If you're an atheist, it's all a fraud to you so don't waste your time. I have my faith and you have yours. You believe in Mother Nature , happenstance  and  serendipity. I believe in intelligent design.

    When you Darwiniacs can explain how the universe "evolved" I'll listen. Until then I'm on the God Squad.

Ah, but cherry-picking truth (or morality, or what to believe) out of the Bible is a time-honored Judeo-Christian tradition. Why not join in? (Well of course, you have.)

Regardless, you leave open the pathway that either (1) you might not really be a very moral person, or (2) something outside the Bible allows you to make valid, supportable moral choices. If (1), then you better make the time and get to reading, for your eternal fate hangs in the balance. If (2), then maybe some of those atheists out there might be more than the reprobates you portray them to be.

If your "faith" extends to accepting contradiction without questioning, than you are simply practicing self deception...as you are if you really believe atheism is equivalent to viewing the Bible as "all a fraud" and atheism itself as a replacement faith in "Mother Nature." As noted elsewhere, so much for "intelligent design."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest 2smart4u
The universe didn't evolve. Species of living organisms evolve.

Science doesn't begin with final answers. In fact, in science no answer is ever final. All scientific truths are subject to change based on additional information. That is one of the main features distinguishing it from most and perhaps all of the theisms. You would think that by the year 2007 on the Western calendar people capable of typing and sending entries on a computer would be aware of science's track record of progress, and understand why that way of looking at things is best for a relatively large-brained species on Earth whose ability to conceive of answers typically outruns its capacity to obtain them legitimately. Tragically, though, the will to believe overpowers reason, and so we are left with perhaps billions of people on this planet who think they know the final answers when in fact they don't know anything beyond their own biases.

There are books out there to read on the origins of the universe. Books on cosmology and astronomy and related subjects. These books give the best explanations we have for the origins of the universe, but you have to read them before making up your mind --- or at least open your mind long enough and wide enough to receive what they have to say, not just read a few of the words and toss the book aside, but truly read what is being said. There are excellent series on PBS, but of course some people are 2smart to watch them. You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink.

"The universe didn't evolve" ?? Well then, it must have been magic !! Here's the Darwiniac version....... One second there is nothing, a vast empty universe. Then, the next second, poof !! A universe filled with untold trillions of galaxies. No intelligent design here, just magic. You have to be a heavy Kool-Aid user to accept this Darwiniac theory.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guest
"The universe didn't evolve" ??  Well then, it must have been magic !!  Here's the Darwiniac version....... One second there is nothing, a vast empty universe. Then, the next second, poof !!  A universe filled with untold trillions of galaxies. No intelligent design here, just magic.  You have to be a heavy Kool-Aid user to accept this Darwiniac  theory.

No, the universe didn't evolve, so when you ask a question like that you prove to us yet again what we already knew, which is that you're probably not 2smart for anyone. The greatest scientific geniuses the world (Stephen Hawking, for example) accept the big bang as the most reasoned explanation for the formation of the universe. No one is saying that this answers any ultimate questions. The question remains: how did that happen. On the other hand, because of the hypothetical nature of a singularity (and that's all it is, a hypothesis), asking how it happened doesn't make sense: there's nowhere to stand for it to happen from. No doubt you don't even begin to understand this, 2dimwhoeveryourare. You're not the brightest bulb in the box, and as they say, people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. It is, of course, your prerogative to enclose yourself within your own ignorance, but that's all you're doing.

Of course it doesn't bother you in the least that, poof, the greatest complexity of all just is and always was (whatever that means, if it means anything) according to you. That's all the God idea is, just a guess, a hunch, a hope. Nothing more. It makes no more sense than all the ideas you think to be so ridiculous.

Why is it so hard for you to accept the fact that we don't know the ultimate nature of things? Admission of that simple fact would dispense with a lot of senseless arguing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"The universe didn't evolve" ??  Well then, it must have been magic !!  Here's the Darwiniac version....... One second there is nothing, a vast empty universe. Then, the next second, poof !!  A universe filled with untold trillions of galaxies. No intelligent design here, just magic.

Okay, you can't convince yourself that a giant invisible man in the sky poofed everything into existence and then claim that anything else is "magic."

Not to mention that for one, we've got evidence that the universe is expanding, which aligns perfectly to the Big Bang model.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest 2smart4u
Okay, you can't convince yourself that a giant invisible man in the sky poofed everything into existence and then claim that anything else is "magic."

Not to mention that for one, we've got evidence that the universe is expanding, which aligns perfectly to the Big Bang model.

If a "big bang" created the universe, just what was "IT" that exploded ?? To create the universe, "IT" must have been a huge monolith of planatary material. And where did that come from ?? More magic ?? This "big bang" theory is nothing more than the atheist explanation for the universe, and a poor one at that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Keith-Marshall
If a "big bang" created the universe, just what was "IT"  that exploded ??  To create the universe, "IT" must have been a huge monolith of planatary material. And where did that come from ??  More magic  ??  This "big bang" theory is nothing more than the atheist explanation for the universe, and a poor one at that.

Maybe, maybe not. It is certainly no more ridiculous than the Christian theory.

Were there cave men on the ark along with the dinosuars?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Red-Letter Edition
Sorry Keith, I don't have the time or inclination  to go through the bible and pick out the passages that I don't personally believe. You can use your judgement to decide for yourself.  Of course, If you're an atheist, it's all a fraud to you so don't waste your time. I have my faith and you have yours. You believe in Mother Nature , happenstance  and  serendipity. I believe in intelligent design.

    When you Darwiniacs can explain how the universe "evolved" I'll listen. Until then I'm on the God Squad.

Bravo 2smart! The fact is the Darwinists can't, try as they will. Apart from the Bible, their theory even contradicts the second law of thermodynamics. When applied to the universe, it means that the universe is running down (loosing heat energy) and will one day reach a uniform temperature. This is not evolution, it is the opposite. The universe is actually devolving not evolving. Is devolving a word? :lol:

Also, about interpreting the Bible, its safe to say that it out to be interpreted by the ordinary conventions of interpreting literature. If something is written as poetry, the reader understands that the writing is meant to be interpreted as such. For example, If I were to read a line of poetry written to a beautiful woman, It might read something like this: "Your lips are rubies!" The reader understands immediately that the auther did not mean that the womans lips were cold, hard minerals. The reader understands that the woman's lips are red, precious and appealing. If the passage is historical prose, as is the case with the book of Genesis or even the Gospels, it is intended to be interpreted by the normal conventions of interpreting historical prose, which is literally. For example when Moses predicted a star would mark the Messiah's birth, he meant a literal star, not a rock star. In any case, the Bible, as a general rule, ought to be interpreted in the literal sense keeping the above in mind. Of course there are more genres, including prophecy and wisdom literature, but for the most part, they are intended to be interpreted literally. By the way, Jesus was a literalist:

"For in the days before the flood, people were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, up to the day Noah entered the ark; and they knew nothing about what would happen until the flood came and took them away. That is how it will be at the coming of the Son of Man." Jesus in John 24:38-39

It is obvious that Jesus believed in 4 literal things from this passage:

1. A literal flood.

2. A literal Noah.

3. A literal ark.

4. A literal catastrophe.

5. His own, literal, second coming.

I wonder if Keith will be ready on that day?

Be encouraged my friend, you have been a voice of sanity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest 2smart4u
Bravo 2smart!  The fact is the Darwinists can't, try as they will.  Apart from the Bible, their theory even contradicts the second law of thermodynamics.  When applied to the universe, it means that the universe is running down (loosing heat energy) and will one day reach a uniform temperature.  This is not evolution, it is the opposite.  The universe is actually devolving not evolving.  Is devolving a word?  :angry:

Also, about interpreting the Bible, its safe to say that it out to be interpreted by the ordinary conventions of interpreting literature.  If something is written as poetry, the reader understands that the writing is meant to be interpreted as such.  For example,  If I were to read a line of poetry written to a beautiful woman, It might read something like this: "Your lips are rubies!"  The reader understands immediately that the auther did not mean that the womans lips were cold, hard minerals.  The reader understands that the woman's lips are red, precious and appealing.  If the passage is historical prose, as is the case with the book of Genesis or even the Gospels, it is intended to be interpreted by the normal conventions of interpreting historical prose, which is literally.  For example when Moses predicted a star would mark the Messiah's birth, he meant a literal star, not a rock star.  In any case, the Bible, as a general rule, ought to be interpreted in the literal sense keeping the above in mind.  Of course there are more genres, including prophecy and wisdom literature, but for the most part, they are intended to be interpreted literally. By the way, Jesus was a literalist:

"For in the days before the flood, people were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, up to the day Noah entered the ark; and they knew nothing about what would happen until the flood came and took them away.  That is how it will be at the coming of the Son of Man."  Jesus in John 24:38-39

It is obvious that Jesus believed in 4 literal things from this passage:

1. A literal flood.

2. A literal Noah.

3. A literal ark.

4. A literal catastrophe.

5. His own, literal, second coming.

I wonder if Keith will be ready on that day?

Be encouraged my friend, you have been a voice of sanity.

As the saying goes; there's no atheists in foxholes. And as the song goes; I swear there ain't no heaven and I pray there ain't no hell. I doubt there's many atheists that take their views to the grave.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guest
If a "big bang" created the universe, just what was "IT"  that exploded ??  To create the universe, "IT" must have been a huge monolith of planatary material. And where did that come from ??  More magic  ??  This "big bang" theory is nothing more than the atheist explanation for the universe, and a poor one at that.

that's why the big bang theory is just a THEORY! And it will continue to be just a THEORY!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guest
Bravo 2smart!  The fact is the Darwinists can't, try as they will.  Apart from the Bible, their theory even contradicts the second law of thermodynamics.  When applied to the universe, it means that the universe is running down (loosing heat energy) and will one day reach a uniform temperature.  This is not evolution, it is the opposite.  The universe is actually devolving not evolving.  Is devolving a word?  :angry:

Also, about interpreting the Bible, its safe to say that it out to be interpreted by the ordinary conventions of interpreting literature.  If something is written as poetry, the reader understands that the writing is meant to be interpreted as such.  For example,  If I were to read a line of poetry written to a beautiful woman, It might read something like this: "Your lips are rubies!"  The reader understands immediately that the auther did not mean that the womans lips were cold, hard minerals.  The reader understands that the woman's lips are red, precious and appealing.  If the passage is historical prose, as is the case with the book of Genesis or even the Gospels, it is intended to be interpreted by the normal conventions of interpreting historical prose, which is literally.  For example when Moses predicted a star would mark the Messiah's birth, he meant a literal star, not a rock star.  In any case, the Bible, as a general rule, ought to be interpreted in the literal sense keeping the above in mind.  Of course there are more genres, including prophecy and wisdom literature, but for the most part, they are intended to be interpreted literally. By the way, Jesus was a literalist:

"For in the days before the flood, people were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, up to the day Noah entered the ark; and they knew nothing about what would happen until the flood came and took them away.  That is how it will be at the coming of the Son of Man."  Jesus in John 24:38-39

It is obvious that Jesus believed in 4 literal things from this passage:

1. A literal flood.

2. A literal Noah.

3. A literal ark.

4. A literal catastrophe.

5. His own, literal, second coming.

I wonder if Keith will be ready on that day?

Be encouraged my friend, you have been a voice of sanity.

What Keith doesn't know is that many people were probably trying hard to get into that ark when it started to rain, but it was too late. God closed the door and no man could open it. Now it is time to turn to God, not when he closes the door. Wake up Keith!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Paul
Bravo 2smart!  The fact is the Darwinists can't, try as they will.  Apart from the Bible, their theory even contradicts the second law of thermodynamics.  When applied to the universe, it means that the universe is running down (loosing heat energy) and will one day reach a uniform temperature.  This is not evolution, it is the opposite.  The universe is actually devolving not evolving.  Is devolving a word?  :angry:

Also, about interpreting the Bible, its safe to say that it out to be interpreted by the ordinary conventions of interpreting literature.  If something is written as poetry, the reader understands that the writing is meant to be interpreted as such.  For example,  If I were to read a line of poetry written to a beautiful woman, It might read something like this: "Your lips are rubies!"  The reader understands immediately that the auther did not mean that the womans lips were cold, hard minerals.  The reader understands that the woman's lips are red, precious and appealing.  If the passage is historical prose, as is the case with the book of Genesis or even the Gospels, it is intended to be interpreted by the normal conventions of interpreting historical prose, which is literally.  For example when Moses predicted a star would mark the Messiah's birth, he meant a literal star, not a rock star.  In any case, the Bible, as a general rule, ought to be interpreted in the literal sense keeping the above in mind.  Of course there are more genres, including prophecy and wisdom literature, but for the most part, they are intended to be interpreted literally. By the way, Jesus was a literalist:

"For in the days before the flood, people were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, up to the day Noah entered the ark; and they knew nothing about what would happen until the flood came and took them away.  That is how it will be at the coming of the Son of Man."  Jesus in John 24:38-39

It is obvious that Jesus believed in 4 literal things from this passage:

1. A literal flood.

2. A literal Noah.

3. A literal ark.

4. A literal catastrophe.

5. His own, literal, second coming.

I wonder if Keith will be ready on that day?

Be encouraged my friend, you have been a voice of sanity.

Like talking to a brick wall.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Keith-Marshall.Mo

Well, 2smart, Red Letter and "guest". I've said it before and I'll say it again.

If heaven is full of people like you...then what's the payoff?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Patriot
As the saying goes; there's no atheists in foxholes.  And as the song goes; I swear there ain't no heaven and I pray there ain't no hell.  I doubt there's many atheists that take their views to the grave.

Amen, brother.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If a "big bang" created the universe, just what was "IT"  that exploded ??   To create the universe, "IT" must have been a huge monolith of planatary material. And where did that come from ??

It may easily have been always there. Of course, hearing this you'd complain about me not accepting the "God always was there" argument, and the reason for that is simple--it adds a needless variable. At least we know the universe exists--suggesting that it was always there is, however unlikely, exponentially more likely than a baseless assertion about a supreme intelligence (not to mention a supreme complexity), for which there is no evidence, being behind everything.

More magic  ??   This "big bang" theory is nothing more than the atheist explanation for the universe, and a poor one at that.

The Big Bang is not atheistic--just because you believe your god poofed everything into existence in six days, and that is absurd, doesn't mean that there COULDN'T be A god that directly 'set off' the Big Bang. Your arrogance in thinking that the only possible god is yours is laughable, just like you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bravo 2smart!  The fact is the Darwinists can't, try as they will. (emphasis added)

You find me a real scientist that has ever even attempted to apply a biological theory to astronomy and physics, and then I won't call you retarded for even thinking of writing the above.

Apart from the Bible, their theory even contradicts the second law of thermodynamics.

Ho hum, tired argument: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CF/CF001_2.html

When applied to the universe, it means that the universe is running down (loosing heat energy) and will one day reach a uniform temperature.  This is not evolution,

Again, the fact that you're even looking for evolution on a universal level just makes you sound more ignorant of what the Theory of Evolution actually is and states.

it is the opposite.  The universe is actually devolving not evolving.  Is devolving a word?  :lol:

Also, about interpreting the Bible, its safe to say that it out to be interpreted by the ordinary conventions of interpreting literature.

Which is why literary scholars that focus on that time period don't put any more stock in the Bible's 'truth' than in the truth of any of the other myths of the time--Horus, Mithra, etc.

It is obvious that Jesus believed

It's not even obvious Jesus existed--in fact, at best, if he existed, he was most likely merely one of many heretics of the time, whose life had the crap embellished out of it (and very likely the really fantastic stuff was borrowed from other myths of the time, since there are several that predate Jesus but have a lot in common with the story of his life as it's written in the gospels) several decades after his alleged death.

Even the circumstances of the decision of crucifixion are ridiculous to anyone with the slightest inkling of the history of 'the times' around then. Meeting on Passover Eve to decide Jesus's fate? And Pilate letting a known criminal go, and on top of that, acquiescing to a mob of people and letting them influence him to have Jesus put to death against his own will? Are you kidding me? If Pilate heard this story in his lifetime, he'd probably be so insulted he'd sooner have its writer put to death!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As the saying goes; there's no atheists in foxholes.

http://www.maaf.info/

Idiot.

And as the song goes; I swear there ain't no heaven and I pray there ain't no hell.  I doubt there's many atheists that take their views to the grave.

You would--of course, what you 'doubt' is often correct. That's just the kind of track record someone as ignorant as you has run up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
that's why the big bang theory is just a THEORY! And it will continue to be just a THEORY!

You know what else is "just a THEORY?"

GRAVITY

Perhaps you would be interested in joining the Intelligent Falling movement. Idiot.

"In scientific usage, a theory does not mean an unsubstantiated guess or hunch, as it can in everyday speech. A theory is a logically self-consistent model or framework for describing the behavior of a related set of natural or social phenomena. It originates from or is supported by experimental evidence (see scientific method). In this sense, a theory is a systematic and formalized expression of all previous observations that is predictive, logical and testable. In principle, scientific theories are always tentative, and subject to corrections or inclusion in a yet wider theory. Commonly, a large number of more specific hypotheses may be logically bound together by just one or two theories. As a general rule for use of the term, theories tend to deal with much broader sets of universals than do hypotheses, which ordinarily deal with much more specific sets of phenomena or specific applications of a theory." --http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory#Science

(I am totally sick and tired of this tremendously stupid 'argument,' as one can probably tell. You can only hear the same fallacy so many times before it becomes frustrating)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...