You thinking of empirical experiments where you can only control so many variables. When I was saying reason, I was eluding to causation. All that exists was caused by something else. Every property an object has was caused by something else…That’s a whole bunch of causality. Everything physical and metaphysical was caused by something else.[/quote]
See, I disagree. Once you get over the idea that time is a straight line we are all traveling down at a fixed speed, you don’t need causation even, just relation. We see that two events happen in relation, and that’s all we can say. There’s not need for causation at that level. Things just are or are not.
I believe that accepting this is a logical necessity, otherwise you get stuck in a “first cause” contradiction, where you’re asking what caused the first cause.
I’d argue that since time isn’t a linear line, and relations, rather than causation are primary, you don’t even need to ask that absurd question.[/quote]
Time is a relative measure of movement and change. For things to move and change, something must cause them to do so.[/quote]
Time is a relative measure of movement and change. For things to move and change, something must cause them to do so.[/quote]
I’m not sure what the first sentence has to do with the second. I think the first is one track, but still not quit right (sounds more like special theory to me than general theory), but the second doesn’t follow at all.
Time is a relative measure of movement and change. THEREFORE, for things to move and change, something must cause them to do so. How does this follow?[/quote]
That’s not the argument. Things move and change, why? Because something causes them to. Time is a measure of that movement /change relative to something else’s movement and change. Like the Earth orbiting the sun.
-No maestro when it comes to the disproving of God? This topic has been covered. It isn’t possible to prove that something doesn’t exist. Burden of proof is on the person making the claim of existence. Therefore, I await your symphony of logic establishing the existence of such a being.
=
[/quote]
This is still one of the worst myths that atheists perpetuate and everyone I have discussed with all make the same bullshit argument. I supposed you are going to utter the words “flying spaghetti monster” too? All atheists like to bring that one up too.
Let me tell you where the burden of proof lies. It lies on the one who believes that all that exists was begotten by nothing at all, for no reason at all. By being an atheist, you assert this by default. And you must explain. Since there is no realm in which true non-existence that can bring about existence exists.
I double-dog fucking dare you to drag quantum mechanics into it. Because it to fails at making the something from nothing assertion nor does it dismantle causation. It’s simply not well understood.
So go ahead you rational logical atheist you… Here I’ll start:
Once upon a time there was nothing…Well time did not exist either because it’s a something so somewhere somehow there was a complete and total, non-existence. And from that for no reason what-so-ever…<- Fill the rest in for us. [/quote]
You reveal yet another weakness of religion and strength of science. Most specifically that scientists can and will say, “We don’t know.” Of course science doesn’t know everything…its power lies in the fact that it admits it doesn’t know everything. If science could explain everything it would stop. Religions, however, put their supporters in a bad position. Religions cannot admit they don’t know everything because they claim inspiration from an almighty. Therefore, they make up whatever fairy tales they deem necessary to fill in the gaps.
[/quote]
Incorrect. The purpose of religion is not to explain the unknown. It’s purpose is to get to know that which created it. Why? Because, “IT” wanted to get to know us. Whether you believe that or not is irrelevant. The point is and the error most athiests make is that religion’s purpose is to explain that which is unknown. That is not true. It’s about relating to that which is greater than us.
If you cannot know, you cannot logically exclude possibilities. Where most scientists fail is that they set aside a set of possibilities and will not explore them for fear it may debunk what they think. The bottom line is this. An atheist, necessarily must think that all creation comes from nothing. When I say nothing, I mean nothing at all. No vacuums, no voids, no laws, no theories, thoughts, no nothing. Nothing means a complete absence of existence. It is not satisfactory to claim that nothing caused everything thing and subsequently claim to admit you don’t know and pretend that is something to hang you hat on. “I don’t know” is not good enough. You have made the claim that all comes from nothing, you have to prove it. Forget what you think religion claims. Prove your point.[/quote]
Where do you come up with this garbage? Why is it up to the other side to prove your fairy tales aren’t true? I can’t prove Superman doesn’t exist. If you want me to believe he does exist beyond comic book fiction then prove it to me.
It’s funny how you state beliefs you have as if they are facts and then state its irrelevant if we believe you.
Gee… if a perfect all knowing GOD wanted to get to know us… the best way would probably be to appear to a select few individuals a long time ago… and then disapear without a trace and allow his message to be distorted and twisted through the generations. Oh… and you must have faith in these ancient stories. You must set all common sense aside and just believe in this book. If you were born into another religious area then you must somehow not have faith in that and come have faith in our magic man instead.
Yep… sounds like a devine plan alright. Kinda like nailing a guy to a cross automatically relieves us of our sins? THAT MAKES NO SENSE! It certainly didn’t do anything to improve mans behavior from that time forward. Christians included. Sounds like a serious rewrite of his history to me. Things didn’t end well for Jesus. He got taken out. What the fuck is the holy spirit anyway? I am a confirmed catholic so don’t assume I don’t know the religion. I just can’t blindly accept nonsense. An all knowing god will understand that. I’m covered.
[/quote]
This is your argument??? Really? Good luck with that, it’s small issue to me.[/quote]
Nice try. I see you as the one flinging insults left and right. At least you didn’t insult me. You are spewing nonsense and patting yourself on the back for it.
Here’s a tip. Science will never get to the point where it can disprove god because of the nature of the arguement. Someone in your position will always point to the unknown as being a possible point to god.
You have no proof. You have faith and a man made book. I got a book. How about Jurassic Park. Prove it never happened.[/quote]
Fine, prove what I wrote is wrong and I will happily engage you.
[/quote]
I just demonstrated that your silly book can’t be proven false. Are you sure your following along? You stated that the burden of proof falls to the nonbelievers. I adequately proved to you that this is false. Have you proved that the Quran is false? You must have since you are so confident in your book. Of course you have not… because that is imposible. Therefore the house of cards to your arguement falls down.
I’ll say it again. You have faith and a man made book. Have your faith. But don’t use backwards tactics to try and demonstrate proof where there is none.[/quote]
What the fuck are you on about? I think you have the wrong guy. I have discussed the Bible, if that is the ‘silly’ book you are referring to, but that’s not what we are talking about here.
There’s no point in discussing the Bible with atheists/ agnostics. I’ll discuss it with other Christians, but not non-believers. That’s pointless and I made none of the assertions that you are accusing me of. You must have read what somebody else wrote and thought it was me.
Time is a relative measure of movement and change. For things to move and change, something must cause them to do so.[/quote]
I’m not sure what the first sentence has to do with the second. I think the first is one track, but still not quit right (sounds more like special theory to me than general theory), but the second doesn’t follow at all.
Time is a relative measure of movement and change. THEREFORE, for things to move and change, something must cause them to do so. How does this follow?[/quote]
That’s not the argument. Things move and change, why? Because something causes them to. Time is a measure of that movement /change relative to something else’s movement and change. Like the Earth orbiting the sun.[/quote]
Time is also only relevant from the position of the observer. People who believe in God (and some of you seem to have a very elementary or Sunday school impression of what God is or could be) believe that he lives OUTSIDE of time. That is what is meant by being the Alpha and Omega, the beginning and end. Time is only relevant to us. To an entity that can exist outside of time, time is not a concern…therefore all can be known because all has already happened, is happening, will happen.
What I hate is that debates that could lead to interesting discussion get hijacked by people who simply try to attack religion as a whole.
What some of you keep calling “fairy tales” would actually be considered more science fiction in this day and age if we could actually discuss this beyond the aspect of literal interpretations of circumstances in the Bible that have been debated for centuries…which we know often becomes more reality with each passing year.
[quote]horsepuss wrote:
All you guys are doing is acting like the mormons who knock on youre door and wont go away.
Believers, explain the existince of dinosaurs and the role they played.
Non believers, explian the existince of the Higgs-Boson (god particle) if it exists.[/quote]
Wait, what? You believe all people who believe in God also believe Dinosaurs didn’t exist?
Why do you think like this?
It is beyond obvious that most of you seem to be relating every Christian in the world to whatever least common denominator ramblings you’ve heard before with no real research of your own.
Time is a relative measure of movement and change. For things to move and change, something must cause them to do so.[/quote]
I’m not sure what the first sentence has to do with the second. I think the first is one track, but still not quit right (sounds more like special theory to me than general theory), but the second doesn’t follow at all.
Time is a relative measure of movement and change. THEREFORE, for things to move and change, something must cause them to do so. How does this follow?[/quote]
That’s not the argument. Things move and change, why? Because something causes them to. Time is a measure of that movement /change relative to something else’s movement and change. Like the Earth orbiting the sun.[/quote]
But the “Why” is superfluous. Sometimes we can show what appear to be cause/effect relationships (they appear to be, in the same way time appears to be linear).
Take gravity. It exists where there is mass. You don’t get gravity without mass, or mass without gravity. It’s relation. Mass doesn’t “create” or cause gravity. They are simply phenomena with a known relation. To ask which came first is meaningless, they are simply phenomena caught in a relationship with each other, neither is prior.
To use your earth orbiting the sun as an example. Why does the Earth orbit the son? (I’d say this is the wrong question). Someone might say because of gravity. But gravity is bound to mass, so the real answer would be something like the earth orbits the sun because it’s the earth and the sun is the sun: both massive objects.
But the question is wrong, because the earth doesn’t orbit the sun, the earth and the sun move around each other in mutual relation, based on their properties. There is certainly no Reason behind it, and the cause only goes as deep as the properties of the objects involved, and the relations those properties exhibit.
[quote]horsepuss wrote:
All you guys are doing is acting like the mormons who knock on youre door and wont go away.
Believers, explain the existince of dinosaurs and the role they played.
Non believers, explian the existince of the Higgs-Boson (god particle) if it exists.[/quote]
Wait, what? You believe all people who believe in God also believe Dinosaurs didn’t exist?
Why do you think like this?
It is beyond obvious that most of you seem to be relating every Christian in the world to whatever least common denominator ramblings you’ve heard before with no real research of your own.[/quote]
No No Prof I in no way am trying to imply that, I am just trying to open the discussion of why they existed.if god created them and if so why.Alot of believers dispell evolution but with the existince of dinosaurs it seems kind of obvious.
and I like your post about god living outside of time.
[quote]horsepuss wrote:
All you guys are doing is acting like the mormons who knock on youre door and wont go away.
Believers, explain the existince of dinosaurs and the role they played.
Non believers, explian the existince of the Higgs-Boson (god particle) if it exists.[/quote]
Dinosaurs where large warm blooded reptiles who, through mass extinction 65 million years ago died off. Some thing a meteorite or other cataclysm did it, but that theory has issues in that it took thousands of years for the extinction to take place. What they do know is that the atmosphere was about 20% O2 back then and as the O2 concentration went down so did the size of the animals that can could be sustained was much smaller.
The elusive Higgs-Boson “particle” is the particle that gives matter mass. The hadron collider in Switzerland was created to see if this elusive property can be discovered. String theory believes that mass comes from a quark vibrating a particular frequency.
[quote]horsepuss wrote:
All you guys are doing is acting like the mormons who knock on youre door and wont go away.
Believers, explain the existince of dinosaurs and the role they played.
Non believers, explian the existince of the Higgs-Boson (god particle) if it exists.[/quote]
Dinosaurs where large warm blooded reptiles who, through mass extinction 65 million years ago died off. Some thing a meteorite or other cataclysm did it, but that theory has issues in that it took thousands of years for the extinction to take place. What they do know is that the atmosphere was about 20% O2 back then and as the O2 concentration went down so did the size of the animals that can could be sustained was much smaller.
The elusive Higgs-Boson “particle” is the particle that gives matter mass. The hadron collider in Switzerland was created to see if this elusive property can be discovered. String theory believes that mass comes from a quark vibrating a particular frequency. [/quote]
String theory has been shown to be totally bunk, I hope everyone got the memo.
The Higgs-Boson “particle” (should it be proven) wouldn’t change the game, it just makes our scale smaller… although if it’s present in all mass, then it doesn’t really change anything at all.
At some point, you’re still going to end up with the “smallest part”, and it exhibits properties, which are inherent to it (i.e. not caused by anything), and what we see is the interaction of those un-caused properties.
Time is a relative measure of movement and change. For things to move and change, something must cause them to do so.[/quote]
I’m not sure what the first sentence has to do with the second. I think the first is one track, but still not quit right (sounds more like special theory to me than general theory), but the second doesn’t follow at all.
Time is a relative measure of movement and change. THEREFORE, for things to move and change, something must cause them to do so. How does this follow?[/quote]
That’s not the argument. Things move and change, why? Because something causes them to. Time is a measure of that movement /change relative to something else’s movement and change. Like the Earth orbiting the sun.[/quote]
But the “Why” is superfluous. Sometimes we can show what appear to be cause/effect relationships (they appear to be, in the same way time appears to be linear).
Take gravity. It exists where there is mass. You don’t get gravity without mass, or mass without gravity. It’s relation. Mass doesn’t “create” or cause gravity. They are simply phenomena with a known relation. To ask which came first is meaningless, they are simply phenomena caught in a relationship with each other, neither is prior.
[/quote]
Gravity is a property of mass. Gravity causes “stuff” to be drawn to it. Mass is caused by something…They are working on where.
The greater mass draws the smaller mass towards it.
No, the sun has an orbit around the super-massive black hole in the center of the Milky Way, The earth and all the planets orbit the sun as it orbits the SMBH…
They always go together. Neither is prior. It’s relation, not causation.
And saying they are working on finding out where mass comes from, unless they prove that it magically came from nothing, we’re just going to get something “smaller”, and ask where that came from. Which doesn’t avoid the infinite regression. There is either a smaller part, or their isn’t. If there’s always a smaller part, it’s an infinite regression, and we can’t know “why” anything happens. Just keep finding smaller parts. If there is a smallest part, then we just have to accept it as being. Finding the universe’s smallest, most primary piece of stuff, won’t tell us why it’s there.
[quote]pat wrote:
No, the sun has an orbit around the super-massive black hole in the center of the Milky Way, The earth and all the planets orbit the sun as it orbits the SMBH… [/quote]
You’re wrong here. They are all moving in relation to each other. All massive objects have that relation with gravity, attracting other massive objects, including black holes. They are all moving towards/around each other in proportion to eachother’s mass. And since there is no absolute space, you can just as correctly say, that the earth is pulling the black hole towards itself, as the black-hole is pulling earth. Because neither is prior. Because there is no cause, just relation.
[quote]pat wrote:
What the fuck are you on about? I think you have the wrong guy. I have discussed the Bible, if that is the ‘silly’ book you are referring to, but that’s not what we are talking about here.
There’s no point in discussing the Bible with atheists/ agnostics. I’ll discuss it with other Christians, but not non-believers. That’s pointless and I made none of the assertions that you are accusing me of. You must have read what somebody else wrote and thought it was me.
[/quote]
Sigh… ok. First I should apologize for saying “silly”. I ordinarily successfully avoid that sort of thing. hot topic.
Here’s an example of you discussing the bible with nonbelievers.
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]espenl wrote:
[quote]honest_lifter wrote:
[quote]espenl wrote:
Some minor events happened in the middle east some years ago, someone blew the stories out of proportion, to sell their god. These days the bible is one big metaphor.[/quote]
One big metaphor? Have you read the Bible? What is such a big metaphor about it?[/quote]
It was an ironic commentary on how every “fact” in the bible that is disproved is defended with “its just a metaphor”.
[/quote]
Well, it’s apparent, you do not know what the fuck you are talking about…You want facts study archeology…They get it about half right 50% of the time. The Bible is a book of truth, not facts. If it were a book of facts it would simply be a study guide…Do blame us for your ignorance of the matter. It is not a book of metaphors either, that is just as ridiculous. [/quote]
Here is you refuting that the burden of proof lies with the believers. And then challenging debate. Seems like your “double-dog fucking daring” to discuss it. So why the change of heart?
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]JSMaxwell wrote:
-No maestro when it comes to the disproving of God? This topic has been covered. It isn’t possible to prove that something doesn’t exist. Burden of proof is on the person making the claim of existence. Therefore, I await your symphony of logic establishing the existence of such a being.
=
[/quote]
This is still one of the worst myths that atheists perpetuate and everyone I have discussed with all make the same bullshit argument. I supposed you are going to utter the words “flying spaghetti monster” too? All atheists like to bring that one up too.
Let me tell you where the burden of proof lies. It lies on the one who believes that all that exists was begotten by nothing at all, for no reason at all. By being an atheist, you assert this by default. And you must explain. Since there is no realm in which true non-existence that can bring about existence exists.
I double-dog fucking dare you to drag quantum mechanics into it. Because it to fails at making the something from nothing assertion nor does it dismantle causation. It’s simply not well understood.
So go ahead you rational logical atheist you… Here I’ll start:
Once upon a time there was nothing…Well time did not exist either because it’s a something so somewhere somehow there was a complete and total, non-existence. And from that for no reason what-so-ever…<- Fill the rest in for us. [/quote]
I responded to your posts. You also said this…
pat wrote:
“Incorrect. The purpose of religion is not to explain the unknown. It’s purpose is to get to know that which created it. Why? Because, “IT” wanted to get to know us. Whether you believe that or not is irrelevant.”
I commented on this in my first posts as well. You state an opinion as if its a fact that no one could prove and then followed it up with “whether you believe that or not is irrelevant”. Um… ok… whatever you say. How do you not remember saying all this?
What I hate is that debates that could lead to interesting discussion get hijacked by people who simply try to attack religion as a whole.
[/quote]
I get your point but I don’t think thats entirely fair and accurate. The religious side has been pretty vicious in this thread. Kinda hard to keep a civil debate. Such as…
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]Makavali wrote:
I hope you guys realize all the mental masturbation spewed out onto these boards by Pat and his ilk is little more than a smokescreen.
“The Bible can’t be wrong, but we have no proof so we will use poorly reasoned arguments against ‘the other side’ and attempt to poorly obfuscate said arguments to make us look like we have some idea of what we’re talking about”.
Please. The bullshit has to stop. You DON’T understand the science behind the big bang, you don’t even have a fucking clue. If you actually want to disprove it, go do a fucking university paper on it, educate your bronze age minds and then come back. And as for “Book of Truth”, don’t make me fucking laugh, it switches so violently from stone cold literal fact to happy smiley ‘metaphor’ so often and so quickly it’s not even funny anymore.
And shame on you ALL for responding to a thread made by a known troll.[/quote]
Why don’t you prove me wrong big boy? I have a clue and you don’t you cannot argue, you cannot make any points you don’t know logic…You are basically dumber than mule shit and as useless as tits on a bull. You are out of your league. It must piss you off to be that idiotic. [/quote]
[quote]horsepuss wrote:
All you guys are doing is acting like the mormons who knock on youre door and wont go away.
Believers, explain the existince of dinosaurs and the role they played.
Non believers, explian the existince of the Higgs-Boson (god particle) if it exists.[/quote]
I actually like your question and your response to Prof X.
I would say that the Bible points to the end of times surrounding the Middle East. Prior to the discovery of oil what was the Middle East known for? Sand other than that Really nothing IMO. The Dinosaurs were here to live, die, and turn into Oil to make the Middle East the Center of the World. From a religious perspective this could be a reason.
They always go together. Neither is prior. It’s relation, not causation.
I didn’t say it was. You did. You said, that I would think that mass causes gravity. I said that it is simply a property of mass. Can it be vice versa, sure I suppose. Doesn’t really matter which came first, they both are derived from something else.
Absolutely.
[quote]pat wrote:
No, the sun has an orbit around the super-massive black hole in the center of the Milky Way, The earth and all the planets orbit the sun as it orbits the SMBH… [/quote]
You’re wrong here. They are all moving in relation to each other. All massive objects have that relation with gravity, attracting other massive objects, including black holes. They are all moving towards/around each other in proportion to eachother’s mass. And since there is no absolute space, you can just as correctly say, that the earth is pulling the black hole towards itself, as the black-hole is pulling earth. Because neither is prior. Because there is no cause, just relation.[/quote]
Yes objects will cause each other to wobble but the sun is far more stable than the earth. We may cause a slight wobble in it’s spin, but we are not reciprocating around each other.
There is no relation. A correlation simply means that we cannot derive all the variables as to why an event happens and it doesn’t always happen as it should. That’s why we have statistics. But if you know all the variables involved, you’ll know why event X happened.
In empiricism you can at best arrive at correlational effect. In math, theoretical science or philosophy, the stuff of metaphysics, you don’t have that limitation. It’s actually the opposite. You bring in only the variables you need, so your results are solid. Causes are tied directly to there results.
What’s you argument against causation…Even rampant atheists like Hume had to deal in metaphysics and admit that causation exists, but he thought there was more to it than can be understood. Hence he invented the “3rd element”. Wasn’t a very good theory, but he was a hell of an epistemologist.
[quote]pat wrote:
What the fuck are you on about? I think you have the wrong guy. I have discussed the Bible, if that is the ‘silly’ book you are referring to, but that’s not what we are talking about here.
There’s no point in discussing the Bible with atheists/ agnostics. I’ll discuss it with other Christians, but not non-believers. That’s pointless and I made none of the assertions that you are accusing me of. You must have read what somebody else wrote and thought it was me.
[/quote]
Sigh… ok. First I should apologize for saying “silly”. I ordinarily successfully avoid that sort of thing. hot topic.
Here’s an example of you discussing the bible with nonbelievers.
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]espenl wrote:
[quote]honest_lifter wrote:
[quote]espenl wrote:
Some minor events happened in the middle east some years ago, someone blew the stories out of proportion, to sell their god. These days the bible is one big metaphor.[/quote]
One big metaphor? Have you read the Bible? What is such a big metaphor about it?[/quote]
It was an ironic commentary on how every “fact” in the bible that is disproved is defended with “its just a metaphor”.
[/quote]
Well, it’s apparent, you do not know what the fuck you are talking about…You want facts study archeology…They get it about half right 50% of the time. The Bible is a book of truth, not facts. If it were a book of facts it would simply be a study guide…Do blame us for your ignorance of the matter. It is not a book of metaphors either, that is just as ridiculous. [/quote]
Well you got me there…I was being protective. It does drive me nuts when people who don’t know a damn thing about religion and faith tell believers what their actually doing…It’s like Richard Simmons coming to the gym to tell you how to squat.
People don’t understand what burden of proof is. You make a claim you gotta back it up. Atheists like to take the easy way out by say. “Well you can’t prove a negative” which is bullshit because math does it all the time. Second, when you claim a particular belief, Atheism, or Theism you are also making a statement on existence, either shit exists because of something or it exists because of nothing.
If you believe that everything came from nothing, who is asserting the negative? Who is making the more absurd claim?
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]JSMaxwell wrote:
-No maestro when it comes to the disproving of God? This topic has been covered. It isn’t possible to prove that something doesn’t exist. Burden of proof is on the person making the claim of existence. Therefore, I await your symphony of logic establishing the existence of such a being.
=
[/quote]
This is still one of the worst myths that atheists perpetuate and everyone I have discussed with all make the same bullshit argument. I supposed you are going to utter the words “flying spaghetti monster” too? All atheists like to bring that one up too.
Let me tell you where the burden of proof lies. It lies on the one who believes that all that exists was begotten by nothing at all, for no reason at all. By being an atheist, you assert this by default. And you must explain. Since there is no realm in which true non-existence that can bring about existence exists.
I double-dog fucking dare you to drag quantum mechanics into it. Because it to fails at making the something from nothing assertion nor does it dismantle causation. It’s simply not well understood.
So go ahead you rational logical atheist you… Here I’ll start:
Once upon a time there was nothing…Well time did not exist either because it’s a something so somewhere somehow there was a complete and total, non-existence. And from that for no reason what-so-ever…<- Fill the rest in for us. [/quote]
I responded to your posts. You also said this…
pat wrote:
“Incorrect. The purpose of religion is not to explain the unknown. It’s purpose is to get to know that which created it. Why? Because, “IT” wanted to get to know us. Whether you believe that or not is irrelevant.”
I commented on this in my first posts as well. You state an opinion as if its a fact that no one could prove and then followed it up with “whether you believe that or not is irrelevant”. Um… ok… whatever you say. How do you not remember saying all this?
[/quote]
The person I was responding to was asserting that religion was an explanation for shit and I was correcting him. The purpose of religion is to relate to the Almighty in some way, not explain why the wheel goes round and round. In the ye olde days all the studies were meshed together, everybody figured out it’s best to study everything as it’s own discipline.
What I hate is that debates that could lead to interesting discussion get hijacked by people who simply try to attack religion as a whole.
[/quote]
I get your point but I don’t think thats entirely fair and accurate. The religious side has been pretty vicious in this thread. Kinda hard to keep a civil debate. Such as…
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]Makavali wrote:
I hope you guys realize all the mental masturbation spewed out onto these boards by Pat and his ilk is little more than a smokescreen.
“The Bible can’t be wrong, but we have no proof so we will use poorly reasoned arguments against ‘the other side’ and attempt to poorly obfuscate said arguments to make us look like we have some idea of what we’re talking about”.
Please. The bullshit has to stop. You DON’T understand the science behind the big bang, you don’t even have a fucking clue. If you actually want to disprove it, go do a fucking university paper on it, educate your bronze age minds and then come back. And as for “Book of Truth”, don’t make me fucking laugh, it switches so violently from stone cold literal fact to happy smiley ‘metaphor’ so often and so quickly it’s not even funny anymore.
And shame on you ALL for responding to a thread made by a known troll.[/quote]
Why don’t you prove me wrong big boy? I have a clue and you don’t you cannot argue, you cannot make any points you don’t know logic…You are basically dumber than mule shit and as useless as tits on a bull. You are out of your league. It must piss you off to be that idiotic. [/quote]
[/quote]
And I stand by every last fucking word. I scraped shit off my shoe with more intelligence and grace.
At 9pm west coast time today (tuesday) on the History Channel there is gonna be a show on about Jesus.Towards the end they talk about the garden of Eden in Iraq and the flooding of the persian gulf.They also mention the tale of Gilgamesh.