Don't dictate beliefs

[KJV]

It aint necessarily so wrote:

<quoted text>Your understanding of statistics is inadequate. And your imagination regarding how such a thing likely happened is also lacking. Such a ribosome would not be constructed one nucleotide at a time as it is in vivo. In an environment where nucleotide exist and can join, we have a sea of fragments of various sizes - some six nucleotides long, some eight, some fourteen, and so on. The three hundred nucleotide sequence would likely form from a few dozen such pieces finding one another. That changes your mathematics radically.

From your own post at http://www.topix.com/forum/religion/atheism/T... :

"Time is in fact the hero of the plot. The time with which we have to deal is of the order of two billion years. What we regard as impossible on the basis of human experience is meaningless there. Given so much time, the “impossibleâ€� becomes possible; the possible probable, and the probable virtually certain. One has only to wait; time itself performs the miracles."

What are the odds of the parts of an infinite god finding one another without an intelligent designer? Zero? My money is on a gene existing without a god before a god existing without a gene.

So you're a betting man.

[-Skeptic-]

KJV wrote:

<quoted text>
I don't recall talking about tornados building air craft out of a junk yard.
But sense you brought it up.
I happen to agree with Hoyle.
"The chance that higher life forms might have emerged in this way is comparable to the chance that a tornado sweeping through a junkyard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein.
This is a reflection of his stance reported elsewhere:
Life as we know it is, among other things, dependent on at least 2000 different enzymes. How could the blind forces of the primal sea manage to put together the correct chemical elements to build enzymes?[4]"

prove your god first before you criticise science,

[Reason Personified]

derek4 wrote:

<quoted text>
So those who go to heaven are supposed to want to go to hell and be unhappy with those who made the wrong choice?
Not me.
But I'd suggest you don't go to heaven then. If you want to be unhappy in hell with the millions who chose it for themselves, that's your right.

Choice? Like there is no book, and your name hasn't been written there-in? If your name is not there, can you do anything to get it put in? If your name is there, can you do anything that would get your name taken out?

What do you propose to do about your great granny's, great granny, making the choice to let the tinkers son have his way with her? If he had just hightailed without leaving that little dribble* behind, your great granny's, great granny's child would not have forced you to choose hell.

It's too bad for you and lucky for your spell casters that just about every human ever born has a bastard or twelve in just about every generation, so really nobody gets to go to heaven. No proof works best for the man with the sermon, and his pet politician.

Still if you are one of the three or four humans ever who meet every criteria, for admittance into heaven, I do hope you are male, Jewish, virgin and ready ..... cause, Dude the bridegroom cometh and you are the bride.

* soon to be bastard

[KJV]

Aerobatty wrote:

<quoted text>I don't know of a single physicist, though there are undoubtedly some, who ever considered string theory a slam dunk.

Your desperation is showing.

Screw your bible.

Join the real world. It's a wonderful place.

Back up the truck a bit there willy!
I am very familiar with string theory and the split in the science community.

The comment from KK was that string theory was not established. My question was what you just jumped all over me and called me desperate for asking a question about a 40+ year old well published scientific theory not being established. I would call string theory established maybe not fully excepted by the whole scientific community but I believe it is well established.

And yes there are many that don't think string theory is a slam dunk!

Such anger!

[KJV]

Aerobatty wrote:

<quoted text>Then why do you say such stupid things?

I don't

[KJV]

Aerobatty wrote:

<quoted text>That would be funny if it weren't so pathetically stupid.

That's ok I was not going for the laughs.

[KJV]

Aerobatty wrote:

<quoted text>Yup.

What if.

And what if your god is a man made myth designed to get barbaric people to behave?

Bad day today batty?

You're venting pretty wildly today.
I guess that's what happens when a atheist start seeing the emptiness of there future.

[KJV]

Aerobatty wrote:

<quoted text>I would say that there is hope for you, but I realize that you just don't understand what he said.

You're telling me what I don't know. LOL

You have no clue to who I am bat boy.

[KJV]

derek4 wrote:

<quoted text>Does this mean we're not going to be best friends anymore?

lol

There appears to be an increase in atheist hostilities toward the Christians.
Why would the be? LOL

[Thinking]

It's "their", cuntard.

KJV wrote:

<quoted text>
Bad day today batty?
You're venting pretty wildly today.
I guess that's what happens when a atheist start seeing the emptiness of there future.

[KJV]

derek4 wrote:

<quoted text>When you and Kitten can't find the words, you dismiss it with another “nothing” post. Hahahaha - way to go, atheists. I see that all the time – it's from atheist training school memo #101.

What's even funnier is that you both copied each other (or you copied her) and dismissed one point YOU made that I actually agreed with you on about the “prosperity gospel”. Had you been a faster thinker, you could have used that to your own advantage, but no, you hurt your own cause by missing the opportunity.

It's fool enough to be an atheist, but it takes an even bigger fool to shoot themselves in their own foot the way you do.

Don't forget on another thread KK posted she was also batty.

Later she denied that she was.
But some how the similarity of their post keeps say other wise.

[KJV]

Just Think wrote:

<quoted text>In other words, there is not now, nor has there ever been, any proof of any god's existence.

Let me get this straight.
You are just now getting this?

Just trying to think: we have as much proof as you have that God does not exist.

[derek4]

Just Think wrote:

<quoted text>
In other words, there is not now, nor has there ever been, any proof of any god's existence.

In other words, there is not now, nor has there ever been, any proof of the theory of evolution.

[Ooogah Boogah]

KJV wrote:

<quoted text>
You're telling me what I don't know. LOL
You have no clue to who I am bat boy.

And apparently, neither do you.

[derek4]

Aerobatty wrote:

<quoted text>
How's that computer of yours working?
When do you suppose your god will be coming out with the next upgrade?

You often repeat yourself by asking repetitive questions.

Senseless parrots often do the same thing that you do, lol.

I don't have a "god".

The God I worship will not be upgrading his perfect word.

Computers, on the other hand, are like other things made by man. They often fail, they have to be constantly updated and maintained. Some computers, like the worthless theory of evolution, become obsolete and useless.

[derek4]

Aerobatty wrote:

<quoted text>
I doubt that there's any atheist with an interest in any of the sciences who is not well aware of its failures and faults.
What you, in your infinite hypocrisy, fail to recognize is your own religions faults and failures.
And, even more hypocritically, you post your crap on technology developed by the very science you claim to be such a total failure.
Science has clearly and irrefutably proven that your bible is loaded with lies and falsehoods, and that topples your house of cards.
Your particular version of religion has to adapt or die.
The choice is yours, but the truth, once found, cannot be unfound.

When you have read posts about science fraud and it launches you into a rambling and directionless tirade such as what you just wrote, you show your insecurity in your atheist faith and your science god.

And just a reminder to everyone - should you have any concerns about web page material, you should address those with the publishers at the link provided. I have no interest in your objections to postings of material authored in scientific publications, The Wall Street Journal, and other sources which are generally accepted.

LMAO

[derek4]

polymath257 wrote:

<quoted text>
How did that article support what you said? If anything, it showed that science eventually works things out.

So you support “the crooked path”. Okay. What else is new?

[derek4]

Aerobatty wrote:

<quoted text>
You're a sick bastard.
It won't be long before your particular mental illness will be medically recognized.

Post 10761 has been reported as abuse.

[derek4]

Khatru wrote:

<quoted text>
Hi Dim
IANS isn't around but I'm sure he won't mind us laughing at you as you shake your scary chicken on a stick.

Remember, I didn't bring up hell. And we're not talking about those chickens atheists say descended from coins.

You need to speak to Hedonist about your concerns, since he's terrified of hell. I was trying to console him, but it won't do him much good. He is determined he wants to go there.

By the way, it sounds like you need “IAN”(s) permission to post what is on your mind. You pore thang - how strange, lol.

You can't think for yourself? Why not? You write hymns, don't you?

[derek4]

Hedonist wrote:

<quoted text>
Yep, you're psychopathic.

As long as you're looking forward to hell, make the most of it when you get there, but don't blame the Christians who took the right road when you had the same chance and took the wrong road. It's psychopathic of you to want to drag Christians down to your level. Psychopaths want to destroy others. I would like to see all people make it to heaven, but you prefer they go to "your" hell. Sad.