A challenge for all of you atheists.

[Lutroo]

I hear it all the time. Being told that Christians are not only anti science, but just plain scientific illiterates. So here is a challenge. I dare one of you atheists to discuss any of the hard sciences with me. I'll even let you pick the topic. I'm no scientists, but I am well read. I have a passing familiarity with many scientific subjects. So, how about it. Anyone feeling froggy?

Eppur Si Muove.

According to available evidence, Galileo never said those words.

 

[HUGGY]

I would like to know why "GAAWWDD" didn't come up with something better than some chiseled rocks to convey the Commandments. Seems a little crude. After all he is all seeing and all knowing. Couldn't he have thrown together a 3D printer and come up with something a little more "Godly"?

I would like to know why you are bringing up religion. I ask for a discussion about science.

I did ask about science. I encorporated several scientific achievements that led to the invention of the 3D printer that god should have known about. You can pick from any number of them.

It was YOU that brought up religion or the lack thereof.

Did you even bother to read the title of your own thread?

Do try to keep up newbie.

Your thread is too vague. Atheism is specific.

 

[cnm]

I believe that falls under the category of engineering. Not science.

?? Patios are part of the universe.

Science is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe.
Wiki​

 

[cnm]

Anything relating to the hard sciences. If you don't know what those are, then you don't belong here. Just saying.

Yammering imbecile.

Difference Between Hard Science and Soft Science

Difference Between Hard Science and Soft Science

You may have heard the natural sciences (chemistry, physics, biology) called the hard sciences and the social sciences (history, political science) referred to as the soft sciences. Certain sciences, such as psychology and sociology, used to be considered soft science and now are considered hard science. So, you may be wondering about the difference between hard and soft science.
​

 

[Lutroo]

I would like to know why "GAAWWDD" didn't come up with something better than some chiseled rocks to convey the Commandments. Seems a little crude. After all he is all seeing and all knowing. Couldn't he have thrown together a 3D printer and come up with something a little more "Godly"?

I would like to know why you are bringing up religion. I ask for a discussion about science.

I did ask about science. I encorporated several scientific achievements that led to the invention of the 3D printer that god should have known about. You can pick from any number of them.

It was YOU that brought up religion or the lack thereof.

Did you even bother to read the title of your own thread?

Do try to keep up newbie.

Your thread is too vague. Atheism is specific.

And yet atheists are the ones who claim that Christians are anti science. That is why I brought it up. I also notice that not a single one of you gutless cowards had the balls to accept my challenge.

 

[Lutroo]

Anything relating to the hard sciences. If you don't know what those are, then you don't belong here. Just saying.

Yammering imbecile.

Difference Between Hard Science and Soft Science

Difference Between Hard Science and Soft Science

You may have heard the natural sciences (chemistry, physics, biology) called the hard sciences and the social sciences (history, political science) referred to as the soft sciences. Certain sciences, such as psychology and sociology, used to be considered soft science and now are considered hard science. So, you may be wondering about the difference between hard and soft science.
​

What I mean by hard science is any field of research that uses the scientific method and is falsifiable through experimentation.

 

[cnm]

What I mean by hard science is any field of research that uses the scientific method and is falsifiable through experimentation.

Yammering imbecile.

 

[Lutroo]

What I mean by hard science is any field of research that uses the scientific method and is falsifiable through experimentation.

Yammering imbecile.

You are the idiot who keeps repeating yourself. Did you have anything useful to contribute?

 

[Nosmo King]

I hear it all the time. Being told that Christians are not only anti science, but just plain scientific illiterates. So here is a challenge. I dare one of you atheists to discuss any of the hard sciences with me. I'll even let you pick the topic. I'm no scientists, but I am well read. I have a passing familiarity with many scientific subjects. So, how about it. Anyone feeling froggy?

Eppur Si Muove.

According to available evidence, Galileo never said those words.

But had he muttered them during his inquisition, we would have never heard from him again.

 

[cnm]

You are the idiot who keeps repeating yourself. Did you have anything useful to contribute?

I agree that demonstrating you are a yammering imbecile was not useful seeing it was already known by your refusal to debate the 'hard sciences' of physics and chemistry as they relate to patio construction and the 'hard sciences' of biology and geology as they relate to evolution, you yammering imbecile.

 

[HUGGY]

I would like to know why "GAAWWDD" didn't come up with something better than some chiseled rocks to convey the Commandments. Seems a little crude. After all he is all seeing and all knowing. Couldn't he have thrown together a 3D printer and come up with something a little more "Godly"?

I would like to know why you are bringing up religion. I ask for a discussion about science.

I did ask about science. I encorporated several scientific achievements that led to the invention of the 3D printer that god should have known about. You can pick from any number of them.

It was YOU that brought up religion or the lack thereof.

Did you even bother to read the title of your own thread?

Do try to keep up newbie.

Your thread is too vague. Atheism is specific.

And yet atheists are the ones who claim that Christians are anti science. That is why I brought it up. I also notice that not a single one of you gutless cowards had the balls to accept my challenge.

You have been here all of one week? Maybe you need a tad more of a track record before anyone seriously takes up one of your challenges.

So NOW atheists are "gutless cowards"?

You don't say.

How amusing.

I never claimed religists are anti science. You use a cell phone? Obviously a computer.. All I have claimed is that religists are stupid and are perpetrating a fraud.

Who cares what you think of science?

If you don't understand and believe in evolution you are beyond incapable of speaking on science.

 

[Lutroo]

I hear it all the time. Being told that Christians are not only anti science, but just plain scientific illiterates. So here is a challenge. I dare one of you atheists to discuss any of the hard sciences with me. I'll even let you pick the topic. I'm no scientists, but I am well read. I have a passing familiarity with many scientific subjects. So, how about it. Anyone feeling froggy?

Eppur Si Muove.

According to available evidence, Galileo never said those words.

But had he muttered them during his inquisition, we would have never heard from him again.

Exactly. There is also the fact that the first mention of this "quote" was 150 years after his trial.

 

[Lutroo]

You are the idiot who keeps repeating yourself. Did you have anything useful to contribute?

I agree that demonstrating you are a yammering imbecile was not useful seeing it was already known by your refusal to debate the 'hard sciences' of physics and chemistry as they relate to patio construction and the 'hard sciences' of biology and geology as they relate to evolution, you yammering imbecile.

Listen up, Spanky. You asked about patio construction. Nothing more. Now, if you wish to discuss materials science, I'm game.

And I did not refuse to discuss physics or chemistry. I simply refuse to discus evolution, since it is not an observable science.

And finally, this is nothing more than your opinion. Now, if you would like to discuss real science, just pick a topic.

 

[Lutroo]

I would like to know why "GAAWWDD" didn't come up with something better than some chiseled rocks to convey the Commandments. Seems a little crude. After all he is all seeing and all knowing. Couldn't he have thrown together a 3D printer and come up with something a little more "Godly"?

I would like to know why you are bringing up religion. I ask for a discussion about science.

I did ask about science. I encorporated several scientific achievements that led to the invention of the 3D printer that god should have known about. You can pick from any number of them.

It was YOU that brought up religion or the lack thereof.

Did you even bother to read the title of your own thread?

Do try to keep up newbie.

Your thread is too vague. Atheism is specific.

And yet atheists are the ones who claim that Christians are anti science. That is why I brought it up. I also notice that not a single one of you gutless cowards had the balls to accept my challenge.

You have been here all of one week? Maybe you need a tad more of a track record before anyone seriously takes up one of your challenges.

So NOW atheists are "gutless cowards"?

You don't say.

How amusing.

I never claimed religists are anti science. You use a cell phone? Obviously a computer.. All I have claimed is that religists are stupid and are perpetrating a fraud.

Who cares what you think of science?

If you don't understand and believe in evolution you are beyond incapable of speaking on science.

There are peer reviewed scientists who don't believe in Darwinian evolution. Would you like to see a list?

 

[HUGGY]

I would like to know why "GAAWWDD" didn't come up with something better than some chiseled rocks to convey the Commandments. Seems a little crude. After all he is all seeing and all knowing. Couldn't he have thrown together a 3D printer and come up with something a little more "Godly"?

I would like to know why you are bringing up religion. I ask for a discussion about science.

I did ask about science. I encorporated several scientific achievements that led to the invention of the 3D printer that god should have known about. You can pick from any number of them.

It was YOU that brought up religion or the lack thereof.

Did you even bother to read the title of your own thread?

Do try to keep up newbie.

Your thread is too vague. Atheism is specific.

And yet atheists are the ones who claim that Christians are anti science. That is why I brought it up. I also notice that not a single one of you gutless cowards had the balls to accept my challenge.

You have been here all of one week? Maybe you need a tad more of a track record before anyone seriously takes up one of your challenges.

So NOW atheists are "gutless cowards"?

You don't say.

How amusing.

I never claimed religists are anti science. You use a cell phone? Obviously a computer.. All I have claimed is that religists are stupid and are perpetrating a fraud.

Who cares what you think of science?

If you don't understand and believe in evolution you are beyond incapable of speaking on science.

There are peer reviewed scientists who don't believe in Darwinian evolution. Would you like to see a list?

Darwin isn't the last word on evolution. Big deal. Evolution is a fact and we have learned quite a lot since Charles Darwin. Anyone that disputes that is a flaming idiot even if he incorrectly calls himself a scientist.

 

[Lutroo]

I would like to know why you are bringing up religion. I ask for a discussion about science.

I did ask about science. I encorporated several scientific achievements that led to the invention of the 3D printer that god should have known about. You can pick from any number of them.

It was YOU that brought up religion or the lack thereof.

Did you even bother to read the title of your own thread?

Do try to keep up newbie.

Your thread is too vague. Atheism is specific.

And yet atheists are the ones who claim that Christians are anti science. That is why I brought it up. I also notice that not a single one of you gutless cowards had the balls to accept my challenge.

You have been here all of one week? Maybe you need a tad more of a track record before anyone seriously takes up one of your challenges.

So NOW atheists are "gutless cowards"?

You don't say.

How amusing.

I never claimed religists are anti science. You use a cell phone? Obviously a computer.. All I have claimed is that religists are stupid and are perpetrating a fraud.

Who cares what you think of science?

If you don't understand and believe in evolution you are beyond incapable of speaking on science.

There are peer reviewed scientists who don't believe in Darwinian evolution. Would you like to see a list?

Darwin isn't the last word on evolution. Big deal. Evolution is a fact and we have learned quite a lot since Charles Darwin. Anyone that disputes that is a flaming idiot even if he incorrectly calls himself a scientist.

There is no evidence that macroevolution ever happened. It is nothing more than a fairy tale for grownups.

 

[Lutroo]

Still waiting for someone to accept my challenge.

 

[HUGGY]

I did ask about science. I encorporated several scientific achievements that led to the invention of the 3D printer that god should have known about. You can pick from any number of them.

It was YOU that brought up religion or the lack thereof.

Did you even bother to read the title of your own thread?

Do try to keep up newbie.

Your thread is too vague. Atheism is specific.

And yet atheists are the ones who claim that Christians are anti science. That is why I brought it up. I also notice that not a single one of you gutless cowards had the balls to accept my challenge.

You have been here all of one week? Maybe you need a tad more of a track record before anyone seriously takes up one of your challenges.

So NOW atheists are "gutless cowards"?

You don't say.

How amusing.

I never claimed religists are anti science. You use a cell phone? Obviously a computer.. All I have claimed is that religists are stupid and are perpetrating a fraud.

Who cares what you think of science?

If you don't understand and believe in evolution you are beyond incapable of speaking on science.

There are peer reviewed scientists who don't believe in Darwinian evolution. Would you like to see a list?

Darwin isn't the last word on evolution. Big deal. Evolution is a fact and we have learned quite a lot since Charles Darwin. Anyone that disputes that is a flaming idiot even if he incorrectly calls himself a scientist.

There is no evidence that macroevolution ever happened. It is nothing more than a fairy tale for grownups.

And you wonder why nobody is taking your so called "challenge" seriously.

Bye Bye

 

[Lutroo]

And yet atheists are the ones who claim that Christians are anti science. That is why I brought it up. I also notice that not a single one of you gutless cowards had the balls to accept my challenge.

You have been here all of one week? Maybe you need a tad more of a track record before anyone seriously takes up one of your challenges.

So NOW atheists are "gutless cowards"?

You don't say.

How amusing.

I never claimed religists are anti science. You use a cell phone? Obviously a computer.. All I have claimed is that religists are stupid and are perpetrating a fraud.

Who cares what you think of science?

If you don't understand and believe in evolution you are beyond incapable of speaking on science.

There are peer reviewed scientists who don't believe in Darwinian evolution. Would you like to see a list?

Darwin isn't the last word on evolution. Big deal. Evolution is a fact and we have learned quite a lot since Charles Darwin. Anyone that disputes that is a flaming idiot even if he incorrectly calls himself a scientist.

There is no evidence that macroevolution ever happened. It is nothing more than a fairy tale for grownups.

And you wonder why nobody is taking your so called "challenge" seriously.

Bye Bye

LOL! That's it? Call me an idiot and leave. Coward! How about you show some scientific evidence for macroevolution? Put up, or shut up.

 

[HUGGY]