Prove there's a god.

RiversideRedneck

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#765586 Aug 6, 2014
Hukt on Fonix wrote:
<quoted text>
Birds with wings very much as you describe them exist today.
Are their wings *utterly* useless?
I assume you mean birds like chickens, kiwis, ostriches and penguins?

Their wings actually do something.

I'm talking about a bird-thing from a gillion years ago that had little bitty winglet nubs.

Stay focused.

“ad victoriam”

Since: Dec 10

arte et marte

#765587 Aug 6, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
It is not predicted by relativity.
There is evidence that "something" exists. That it was black holes is theoretical.
"There are no black holes..."
I have a somewhat clear understanding of what that means.
Do you know what this means?...
"The black hole is not predicted by General Relativity. In reality, the black hole is a meaningless entity, without basis in any theory or in any observation".
Mythology dies hard, huh?
You are stupid, sorry but you really are quiescently unequivocally and absolutely, a tarted retard..

Since: Dec 12

Location hidden

#765588 Aug 6, 2014
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>You would be misinterpreting my attitude and my purpose. This is a response to a series of posts from her telling me how miserable my existence is and how joyful hers is - how I need to fall to my knees and grovel to her god to find the peace and happiness that she claims to have. I'd call THAT elitist.

You're correct - there is a huge inequality between the two of us. But that isn't relevant to the nature of the problem. It's this simple: she believes that she has the right to denigrate others for criticizing what she considers sacred. I believe that Christians need to learn that the rest of us don't care about that, have no obligation to care about it, and that they are going to need to learn how to behave in a culture that is increasingly unwilling to defer to them.
She only denigrates people because she lacks the intellect to "wipe the floor with them" and is deeply envious.

Such a good little christian, I'm sure that if the jesus! character had ever existed, he would be so very proud of her loving example to society.

http://i.imgur.com/Ql9tpgV.jpg

"[Religion] is so patently infantile, so foreign to reality, that to anyone with a friendly attitude to humanity it is painful to think that the majority of mortals will never be able to rise above this view of life."

- Sigmund Freud

Since: Dec 12

Location hidden

#765589 Aug 6, 2014
Hukt on Fonix wrote:
<quoted text>No... penguins can't be snakes.

Penguins are flightless and snakes get on planes.
I gots no werds for that movie.

“ad victoriam”

Since: Dec 10

arte et marte

#765590 Aug 6, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Stuff it up your shiny tighties, Counselor.
Hawking meant what he said? OK
He said, "There are no black holes..."
A black hole is defined as having an event horizon which prohibits the escape of light.
That's why it's called "black".
Hawking says no such event horizon exists.
What does that say for black holes?
You tell me, genius.
Are you a self appointed spokesman for Steven Hawking?
Have you even let him know about it? HAHAHAHAH

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#765591 Aug 6, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
You are wrong.
Publication and peer-review does not make something "science".
Apparently, I understand this level of science much better than you.
Peer review is an evaluation of a work to determine its plausibility. If a scientific work is peer-reviewed, it is science before it was reviewed:
Science is "the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment."
Peer review might determine that "systematic study" to be flawed, tenous, or inconsistent.
But peer-review IS NOT what determines whether a work is "science".
A work can be science, peer-reviewed science, or science not peer reviewed.
I'll give you more free lessons in peer review if you wish.
The scientific method includes not just the methods of the laboratory or observatory (hypothesis, experiment, data collection and analysis, etc), but also the larger scale vetting process that turns a hypothesis into useful, reliable knowledge that can help predict and at times control nature.

This larger scale method includes the vetting that goes into determining what science gets funded, the peer review of papers generated by research and submitted for publication, the reproducing of results, the confirmation of predictions generated from such results, the generation of technology from those results that makes lives better, new and fruitful research suggested by such results, and even the test of time, during which multiple supporting papers are generated and redundant evidence is accumulated (such as DNA evidence supporting fossil evidence) while hundreds of scientists vie unsuccessfully for the recognition that comes from overturning accepted science, and during which time fraudulent results are identified and culled from the literature.

Science that has survived that is unassailable.

"Many scientific theories are so well-established that no new evidence is likely to alter them substantially. For example, no new evidence will demonstrate that the Earth does not orbit around the sun (heliocentric theory), or that living things are not made of cells (cell theory)... Like these other foundational scientific theories, the theory of evolution is supported by so many observations and confirming experiments that scientists are confident that the basic components of the theory will not be overturned by new evidence."
http://www.nas.edu/evolution/TheoryOrFact.htm...

Black hole cosmology has not matured to that point. It is still in flux. And Hawking's recent pronouncements are among the most speculative ideas in cosmology.

“ad victoriam”

Since: Dec 10

arte et marte

#765592 Aug 6, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
I've seen it, and I like Penrose.
He said there were black holes.
Crothers says there aren't. Hawking now says there aren't.
Crothers' math has not been refuted.
You still have no point.
But you still have a huge one.

“Spelin 'n' tpyin...”

Since: Feb 08

...are my strong suits!

#765593 Aug 6, 2014
Stilgar Fifrawi wrote:
<quoted text>
I assume you mean birds like chickens, kiwis, ostriches and penguins?
Their wings actually do something.
I'm talking about a bird-thing from a gillion years ago that had little bitty winglet nubs.
Stay focused.
Ohhh... my goodness... I beg your pardon!

Hadn't realized you'd become an evolutionist.

So... about your hypothetical bird-thing from a gillion years ago that had little bitty winglet nubs...

What point is it, exactly, that you think you're going to make with it?

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#765594 Aug 6, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
1. Paley was not analogizing materials. He was analogizing organization, interdependence, and self-referentiality of components resulting in a common function. The material is irrelevant.
I missed where he said that.
Buck Crick wrote:
2. The comparison of shrubs does not diminish Paley's analogy, it bolsters it. The interaction with the environment, utilization of energy, growth, and reproduction, as they relate to necessity for design, EXCEEDS that of the watch. The higher complexity and specificity are factors in Paley's favor.
Oh. Higher specificity, huh?

“The Bible is no science book”

Since: Jan 08

Location hidden

#765595 Aug 6, 2014
Stilgar Fifrawi wrote:
<quoted text>
I assume you mean birds like chickens, kiwis, ostriches and penguins?
Their wings actually do something.
I'm talking about a bird-thing from a gillion years ago that had little bitty winglet nubs.
Stay focused.
Wings were transformed front (legs or arms) arms with fingers. Dinosaurs like velociraptor had small arms with fingers and they were definitely used for something. Which dinosaur true birds descended from we don't know, but the emu and ostrich are the closest we have to dinos. And they still don't fly. And still have nubby wings.
Anon

Lakewood, OH

#765596 Aug 6, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Thanks.
My fan base continues to grow.
Three and counting...

“Spelin 'n' tpyin...”

Since: Feb 08

...are my strong suits!

#765597 Aug 6, 2014
curiouslu wrote:
<quoted text>
I gots no werds for that movie.
Never actually watched it myself.

Should I?

“The Bible is no science book”

Since: Jan 08

Location hidden

#765598 Aug 6, 2014
Stilgar Fifrawi wrote:
<quoted text>
I assume you mean birds like chickens, kiwis, ostriches and penguins?
Their wings actually do something.
I'm talking about a bird-thing from a gillion years ago that had little bitty winglet nubs.
Stay focused.
I get it now, you are thinking like Jessica Simpsons when she said she didn't think buffalo had wings. You are thinking of a four legged animal with little wings growing on its back.

“Spelin 'n' tpyin...”

Since: Feb 08

...are my strong suits!

#765599 Aug 6, 2014
By the way...

I think those are called dinosaurs.

“Spelin 'n' tpyin...”

Since: Feb 08

...are my strong suits!

#765600 Aug 6, 2014
... the bird-things from a gillion years ago that had little bitty winglet nubs...

... that is.

Since: Jun 14

Location hidden

#765601 Aug 6, 2014

Since: Dec 12

Location hidden

#765602 Aug 6, 2014
Hukt on Fonix wrote:
<quoted text>Never actually watched it myself.

Should I?
Up to you but there are better things you could do with your time. Like polish styrofoam.

Since: Jun 14

Location hidden

#765603 Aug 6, 2014

Since: Dec 12

Location hidden

#765604 Aug 6, 2014
You should "hunt" joylessgodbot, seems like she'd tolerate your misogynistic nincompoopery.

http://i.imgur.com/uttfBQc.jpg

You could have beer parties together and maybe you could pool your resources and hire a tutor for her kids, for fcks sake don't let her school them!

Think of the children. Crikey.

RiversideRedneck

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#765605 Aug 6, 2014
Hukt on Fonix wrote:
<quoted text>
Ohhh... my goodness... I beg your pardon!
Hadn't realized you'd become an evolutionist.
So... about your hypothetical bird-thing from a gillion years ago that had little bitty winglet nubs...
What point is it, exactly, that you think you're going to make with it?
That the winglet nubs of that bird-thing a gillion years ago were useless.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Top Stories Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Plurality of Americans think Trump is failing 10 min Star Wars 17,491
News Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 47 min hojo 683,935
Why Should Jesus Love Me? (Feb '08) 1 hr lil whispers 619,711
Girl snapchat names (Feb '15) 1 hr eli_mitchell137 2
Looking for girls to snapchat 2 hr aldenmorgan737 3
Blindfolded, hands tied and forced to their kne... 3 hr Leave None Alive 1
Play "End of the Word" ..... Part 2 (Dec '16) 4 hr andet1987 86
More from around the web