In America, atheists are still in the closet

[HugeKielbasa]

-Skeptic- wrote:

<quoted text>
I'm sorry but your "humans riding dinosaurs" hallucination is too ridiculous for us intelligent people to believe in.
When you learn how to be honest then you get to have opinions that people care about.

I ride your mom.

Riding your mom is like riding a dinosaur.

Riding on her scaley old big behind is like that of a dinosaur.

I call her the dinowhore!

[-Skeptic-]

HugeKielbasa wrote:

<quoted text>
I ride your mom.
Riding your mom is like riding a dinosaur.
Riding on her scaley old big behind is like that of a dinosaur.
I call her the dinowhore!

You're not a Creationist, so you should be agreeing with me and asking why Buck Crick wants us all to believe in his hallucinations of human beings riding dinosaurs.

I guess you would make that mistake, being a shameless failed racist who can't even guess my race correctly, even though he claims to know so much about what people think based upon only their skin colour...

[-Skeptic-]

HugeKielbasa wrote:

Did soeone win the argument yet?
Who won?
Was it proven yet that god exists or that god doesn't exist?
Please do send me a notification when someone wins this argument.
Thanks.

There's no argument. The fact is that there are liars in our society and those liars are called theists.

God isn't real, its an established fact, except for 90% of the population didn't work hard at school and those people actively f*cked up their logical / critical thinking parts of their brains.

Now they go around lying to people about their cults to get more members.

And all the while, the fact that god isn't real, hasn't changed since this reality came into being.

[ChristineM]

Givemeliberty wrote:

Life long Baptist. It was easy critical thinking and reading the bible cover to cover.
<quoted text>

Yup that critical thinking and actually reading the babble will do it every time

[Mikko]

HugeKielbasa wrote:

<quoted text>
Mikko är finsk-ugriska han dricker renarna urinen.

that is google translate gibberish

[Double Fine]

Buck Crick wrote:

<quoted text>
The problem with all that jazz is I have been proven right.

Buck, you have not been in one scientific debate yet. All you throw around is religious propaganda - and you are too uneducated to know the difference

Buck Crick wrote:

<quoted text>
But I would not argue with you on your field - gay music.

1) Deep Purple, Iron Maiden, Hendrix, Clapton and Chuck Berry did not make 'gay' music
2) Music has no sexuality. One cannot have gay music, just like one cannot have a gay rock or a gay couch.
3) To call someone gay is an insult befitting that of a typical pre-teen. Seems like you found your level, El Bucko?
4) Lastly, no homosexual have ever bothered me and I have no bias against them as a group, as well as the individuals I met in my life.

[HugeKielbasa]

-Skeptic- wrote:

<quoted text>
You're not a Creationist, so you should be agreeing with me and asking why Buck Crick wants us all to believe in his hallucinations of human beings riding dinosaurs.
I guess you would make that mistake, being a shameless failed racist who can't even guess my race correctly, even though he claims to know so much about what people think based upon only their skin colour...

The Dogon tribe depicted what looks like a dogon tribesman riding a dinosaur.

http://www.google.com/imgres...

The Dogon also seem to have known about Sirius B before modern science did.(Which of course would be impossible) Unless they had some help fom above ;-)

If Dinosaurs did survive it would be Africa.

In the Congo & Cameroon they still report seeing dinosaur like creatures they call Mokele-mbembe

[Double Fine]

Aerobatty wrote:

<quoted text>
Sorry.
No joke.
I like Nickelback's music.
I think they're one of the few, if any, bands from the last couple of decades that may make it to be geriatric rockers, like the bands of my day.
Why is it they seem to produce such dislike among their non-fans?
(Don't know if it means anything, but my antibot code for this response was 6663)

Well, Nickelback is better than R&B and pop. They do have some good tracks, that much is true. However, they just lack *it*. I have never heard a solo in a Nickelback song. I have never heard a very difficult drum fill. Never heard Kroeger really stretch his voice.

[Double Fine]

Buck Crick wrote:

<quoted text>
So you agree that Junk DNA is evidence against ID?

Nope.

*Logic* is evidence against ID

[Double Fine]

Buck Crick wrote:

<quoted text>
Real music comes from the soul:
http://www.youtube.com/watch...

True dat

http://www.youtube.com/watch...

[ChristineM]

barefoot2626 wrote:

<quoted text>
Next time you are in Canada, ask someone if they are part of the UK.

Your knowledge of geography seems typical and perfectly matches the rest of your ignorance of anything outside the US borders

Ask any Canadian if they are part of the Commonwealth of Nations (Ex British Commonwealth) and if they told you the truth then they would say yes.

There are many Canadians who don’t like the idea but there are many more that do.

The 1992 referendum
Do you agree that the Constitution of Canada should be renewed on the basis of the agreement reached on August 28, 1992?
Yes 49.6%- No 50.4% with a 72% turnout

The 1995 Quebec referendum
Do you agree that Quebec should become sovereign after having made a formal offer to Canada for a new economic and political partnership within the scope of the bill respecting the future of Quebec and of the agreement signed on June 12, 1995?.
Yes 49.42%- No 50.58% with a 93.5% turnoit

Here for your information is the title of the head of state of Caneda:-
Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom, Canada and of Her other Realms and Territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith

[ChristineM]

Buck Crick wrote:

<quoted text>
Thanks, man.

Was not talking to you, or even about you but the Buck ego wins out again over common sense . Well done.

[Double Fine]

Buck Crick wrote:

<quoted text>
How many times do you want to do this?

Until 5 PM

Buck Crick wrote:

<quoted text>
Macroevolution is not just accumulated microevolution.

Wrong

Buck Crick wrote:

<quoted text>
It requires at least two additional components - a population isolating mechanism, and mutations specifically in genes that regulate development.

Wrong again

Buck Crick wrote:

<quoted text>
Your science education continues.

Continues everyday.

Not by you, thankfully

[Darwins Stepchild]

Double Fine wrote:

<quoted text>
Buck, you have not been in one scientific debate yet. All you throw around is religious propaganda - and you are too uneducated to know the difference
<quoted text>
1) Deep Purple, Iron Maiden, Hendrix, Clapton and Chuck Berry did not make 'gay' music
2) Music has no sexuality. One cannot have gay music, just like one cannot have a gay rock or a gay couch.
3) To call someone gay is an insult befitting that of a typical pre-teen. Seems like you found your level, El Bucko?
4) Lastly, no homosexual have ever bothered me and I have no bias against them as a group, as well as the individuals I met in my life.

Do you think that Buck secretly wishes he were a member of the Village People?

[Double Fine]

Aerobatty wrote:

<quoted text>
Correct.
So...
Proven correct about what, and by whom?
As an aside, I predict that the word "whom" will fade from the english language.

What's a whom?

Just kidding

[HugeKielbasa]

-Skeptic- wrote:

<quoted text>
There's no argument. The fact is that there are liars in our society and those liars are called theists.
God isn't real, its an established fact, except for 90% of the population didn't work hard at school and those people actively f*cked up their logical / critical thinking parts of their brains.
Now they go around lying to people about their cults to get more members.
And all the while, the fact that god isn't real, hasn't changed since this reality came into being.

God has never be fully ruled out nor fully proven.

Yes the evidence is that the Abrahamic religions don't seem to fully fit with evidence & science.

However that does not mean that a god of some sort doesn't exist.

It could be more of the Diest point of view of god which is certainly completely possible.

[HugeKielbasa]

Mikko wrote:

<quoted text>
that is google translate gibberish

http://www.youtube.com/watch...
Vodka!
Finland it is Vodka but they say Wodka?
Poland it is Wodka but they say Vodka LOL
Why do Finns call Vodka Wodka?

[ChristineM]

Aerobatty wrote:

<quoted text>
I agree.
All except for the Nickelback comment.
I like Nickelback.

I did too, not heard of them for a while, The voice of Chad Kroeger is magnificent, reminds me a lot of Roger Daltry, hard and earthy

[Double Fine]

Mikko wrote:

<quoted text>
jail all farmers ?:)

And moustache men...?

[It aint necessarily so]

Buck Crick wrote:

Macroevolution is not just accumulated microevolution.

Yeah it is. That's just theist talk. The professional consensus sees no reason why accumulated microevolution is not identical to macroevolution

From Wiki: "Within the Modern Synthesis school of thought, macroevolution is thought of as the compounded effects of microevolution. Thus, the distinction between micro- and macroevolution is not a fundamental one – the only difference between them is of time and scale. As Ernst W. Mayr observes, "transspecific evolution is nothing but an extrapolation and magnification of the events that take place within populations and species...it is misleading to make a distinction between the causes of micro- and macroevolution”.

Buck Crick wrote:

It requires at least two additional components - a population isolating mechanism, and mutations specifically in genes that regulate development.

The existence of epiphenomena peculiar to a larger scale of life does not indicate a barrier between one growing into the other.

Water is accumulated H2O molecules, and only needs an ice tray in the macroscopic world. Telling me that water molecules can't become small volumes of water because the latter are governed by constraints unique to the larger scale is a bogus argument.

There may epiphenomena emerging between scales of magnitude, like wetness, a surface meniscus, and whitecaps emerging at the macrodihydrogen monoxide scale - the one we experience directly with our senses.

And microdihydrogen monoxide - H20 at the molecular or particle scale - may lack all of those qualities, possessing instead a few of its own unique to its scale - a few not experienced at the scale of the raw senses. At scales below a wavelength of blue light, for example, the molecule probably doesn't do much more than quiver and tumble in the dry darkness.

But one is still just the accumulation of the other, molecule upon molecule. There is no barrier between the scales of magnitude, even if they have their own laws.

Your argument depends on you identifying characteristics of evolution that emerge at larger scales, and treating them as barriers between passage from one magnitude to the other. Sorry.

The fact is, for a holistic perspective, the domains should be considered simultaneously as a single thing, not as you depict them - disconnected.

Do you think a single snowflake is white? How about one branch of it? Do you think that its lack of whiteness is a barrier to a white snow drift forming? It's not.