Are We Alone?

[james bond]

I’m secure in the knowledge that you presume to speak on behalf of only a rather small Cult-ideologically indoctrinated minority.

If I were you, then I would not be secure because nothing is backed up by the scientific method. Otherwise, countless others and I would be on your side. My hero, Blaise Pascal, came up with the idea of Pascal's wager. This should be the default position and not the atheist or agnostic position of I don't believe in God or gods nor I don't know.

 

[zaangalewa]

abu afak

This is funny:



This is not funny:

 

[zaangalewa]

Idiot

 

[Hollie]

I’m secure in the knowledge that you presume to speak on behalf of only a rather small Cult-ideologically indoctrinated minority.

If I were you, then I would not be secure because nothing is backed up by the scientific method. Otherwise, countless others and I would be on your side. My hero, Blaise Pascal, came up with the idea of Pascal's wager. This should be the default position and not the atheist or agnostic position of I don't believe in God or gods nor I don't know.

Correct. Nothing is backed up by the scientific method. It’s all one grand conspiracy. How clever of you to make that discovery. Have your doctors advised when you will emerge from your coma?

Do you realize you are utterly confused about Pascal’s wager? It’s another of the rather simple concepts you don’t understand.

 

[Hollie]

There are honest Christians who have the intellectual integrity to not take the bible literally on scientific matters.

They've bought into naturalism philosophy, too.

Is “naturalism philosophy” a slogan you cut and paste from the charlatans at AIG?

 

[james bond]

I’m secure in the knowledge that you presume to speak on behalf of only a rather small Cult-ideologically indoctrinated minority.

If I were you, then I would not be secure because nothing is backed up by the scientific method. Otherwise, countless others and I would be on your side. My hero, Blaise Pascal, came up with the idea of Pascal's wager. This should be the default position and not the atheist or agnostic position of I don't believe in God or gods nor I don't know.

Correct. Nothing is backed up by the scientific method. It’s all one grand conspiracy. How clever of you to make that discovery. Have your doctors advised when you will emerge from your coma?

Do you realize you are utterly confused about Pascal’s wager? It’s another of the rather simple concepts you don’t understand.

God's work is backed up by the evidence like proteins can only be made from free amino acids INSIDE a cell, not outside. Or we can find no aliens anywhere. Or Earth has a lot going for it. Your evolutionary flat earthers have no clue. Evo does not even have monkeys that walk. We do not see life begin from a geyser at Yellowstone.

Yup. Pascal's wager should be the default position, but the majority will stick to their old, tired they believe.

 

[Hollie]

I’m secure in the knowledge that you presume to speak on behalf of only a rather small Cult-ideologically indoctrinated minority.

If I were you, then I would not be secure because nothing is backed up by the scientific method. Otherwise, countless others and I would be on your side. My hero, Blaise Pascal, came up with the idea of Pascal's wager. This should be the default position and not the atheist or agnostic position of I don't believe in God or gods nor I don't know.

Correct. Nothing is backed up by the scientific method. It’s all one grand conspiracy. How clever of you to make that discovery. Have your doctors advised when you will emerge from your coma?

Do you realize you are utterly confused about Pascal’s wager? It’s another of the rather simple concepts you don’t understand.

God's work is backed up by the evidence like proteins can only be made from free amino acids INSIDE a cell, not outside. Or we can find no aliens anywhere. Or Earth has a lot going for it. Your evolutionary flat earthers have no clue. Evo does not even have monkeys that walk. We do not see life begin from a geyser at Yellowstone.

Yup. Pascal's wager should be the default position, but the majority will stick to their old, tired they believe.

It's odd that you would claim the work of alleged gods is backed up by evidence when there is no evidence of gods as a prerequisite.

I'd be careful about attempting to use a reference to science in your screeching tirades as that would tend to conflict with your assessment that science is a conspiracy.

There is no requirement for life to begin at a Yellowstone geyser so why use that nonsense claim to support a failed argument.

Primates do walk so again, your claims self refute.

You're using dark, conspiracies to support your argument for magic and supernaturalism.

 

[james bond]

It's odd that you would claim the work of alleged gods is backed up by evidence when there is no evidence of gods as a prerequisite.

We have to have faith for God to reveal himself. Once you believe, then you will see the evidence. The proteins can only be made inside a cell is fact. It is observable, testable and falsifiable science. You are ridiculous and not very scientific.

Primates do walk so again, your claims self refute.

This is just circular reasoning which is the basis of evolution. You just proved it and gave yourself away haha.

 

[Hollie]

It's odd that you would claim the work of alleged gods is backed up by evidence when there is no evidence of gods as a prerequisite.

We have to have faith for God to reveal himself. Once you believe, then you will see the evidence. The proteins can only be made inside a cell is fact. It is observable, testable and falsifiable science. You are ridiculous and not very scientific.

Primates do walk so again, your claims self refute.

This is just circular reasoning which is the basis of evolution. You just proved it and gave yourself away haha.

It's actually comical that you attempt to use the very science you despise to support your claims to magic and supernaturalism. Cell proteins do nothing to support your various gods so why use that line of argumentation?

There is no circular reasoning in that apes can walk erect. You're getting rather frantic and lashing out with emotional tirades.

 

[james bond]

It's actually comical that you attempt to use the very science you despise to support your claims to magic and supernaturalism. Cell proteins do nothing to support your various gods so why use that line of argumentation?

There is no circular reasoning in that apes can walk erect. You're getting rather frantic and lashing out with emotional tirades.

What tirade haha? I'm enjoying myself watching you make a fool out of yourself. You provide no science. If one cannot make proteins, then one cannot make life. There would be no building blocks of life. Abiogenesis is pseudoscience like spontaneous generation (both disproved by Dr. Louis Pasteur). See how God and real science works?

Not only do today's apes are not able to walk, they do not turn into ape-humans. We do not even see tailed to tailless monkeys. What happened to the present is the key to the past concept? It's a total fail and goes to show you have faith in evolutionary bullsh*t. I already demonstrated this, but it doesn't penetrate the thich and heavy Hollie skull haha.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Or the planet Venus lensing around a passing Black Hole

Interesting... But such an event would have thrown off the orbits of the planets, so not likely.

What else explain it?

I listed 3 possibilities. And there are more.

Uh huh.

What explains these?

Intentional alteration, light effects on one or more lenses, double exposed film, poor conditions in the film developing room...there are 4. Need more?

I was meaning what would explain them to someone who was sane and rational

 

[Hollie]

It's actually comical that you attempt to use the very science you despise to support your claims to magic and supernaturalism. Cell proteins do nothing to support your various gods so why use that line of argumentation?

There is no circular reasoning in that apes can walk erect. You're getting rather frantic and lashing out with emotional tirades.

What tirade haha? I'm enjoying myself watching you make a fool out of yourself. You provide no science. If one cannot make proteins, then one cannot make life. There would be no building blocks of life. Abiogenesis is pseudoscience like spontaneous generation (both disproved by Dr. Louis Pasteur). See how God and real science works?

Not only do today's apes are not able to walk, they do not turn into ape-humans. We do not even see tailed to tailless monkeys. What happened to the present is the key to the past concept? It's a total fail and goes to show you have faith in evolutionary bullsh*t. I already demonstrated this, but it doesn't penetrate the thich and heavy Hollie skull haha.

The Pasteur reference is another of the frauds you cut and pasted from your ID'iot creation ministries. I debunked it earlier. Another indication that your frantic tirades are getting quite desperate.

Odd that you woukd rattle on about proteins when it was science that gave us the knowledge of proteins, DNA, etc. Not surprisingly, nothing in the study of the biological sciences suggests that magic or supernaturalism plays a role in biology.

Otherwise, your frantic tirades how now been reduced to emotional outbursts of juvenile name-calling.

That's pretty desperate.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I was meaning what would explain them to someone who was sane and rational

Which is exactly what I did, nutball.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I was meaning what would explain them to someone who was sane and rational

Which is exactly what I did, nutball.

No, not at all. Your "explanations" are kind of chimp at a typewriter funny; they make no sense and don't explain anything. There were hundreds of eyewitnesses to the 1952 event.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I was meaning what would explain them to someone who was sane and rational

Which is exactly what I did, nutball.

No, not at all. Your "explanations" are kind of chimp at a typewriter funny; they make no sense and don't explain anything. There were hundreds of eyewitnesses to the 1952 event.

Yet you can't say why they dont make sense or why they don't explain anything. Because you are an anti intellectual moron, Francis

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Or the planet Venus lensing around a passing Black Hole

Interesting... But such an event would have thrown off the orbits of the planets, so not likely.

What else explain it?

I listed 3 possibilities. And there are more.

Uh huh.

What explains these?

Intentional alteration, light effects on one or more lenses, double exposed film, poor conditions in the film developing room...there are 4. Need more?

There were hundreds of eye witnesses on the ground including USAF. You think they were all fooled by a bad picture?

That's what I meant when I said your "Explanations" were chimp at a typewriter

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

There were hundreds of eye witnesses on the ground including USAF

Sure there were.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

There were hundreds of eye witnesses on the ground including USAF

Sure there were.

You didn't read the article I posted with it so of course your "Explanations" were laughable

"I sure explained that one away, eh, Crusader. Excuse me, I have to go back to my day job, advising AOC on economic matters"

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

You didn't read the article I posted

Correct, i didn't. Your posts and articles are generally worthless, steaming piles of shit.

But the 1952 incident was explained 60 years ago. And you have zero other evidence, so no rational person would accept your crackpot claims of aliens.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

You didn't read the article I posted

Correct, i didn't. Your posts and articles are generally worthless, steaming piles of shit.

But the 1952 incident was explained 60 years ago. And you have zero other evidence, so no rational person would accept your crackpot claims of aliens.

LOL. Then you wonder why I laugh at your "explanations"