Atheists are hoping aliens from outer space will contact us...

[BreezeWood]

• No it isn't, you're wrong, you have always been wrong, and you will always be wrong. And if you don't believe me, hold your breath for 30 minutes . Jump off your roof and let me know if you fall down or up. Place your tongue on a red hot stove coil. Go outside and try to lift your car by the back bumper. Just stop with your ridiculous fantasies.

Maybe we have to go through this slowly a few more times because you're a thick-headed moron?

"Evidence" is a curious thing. In the 1850s, scientists believed life could spontaneously generate. This was the prevailing scientific theory of the day and it was supported by the "evidence." What WAS that evidence? Mold and fungi! Of course, as it turns out, mold and fungus aren't evidence of spontaneous generation but scientists didn't know that at the time. So we see clearly, what is thought to be "evidence" is sometimes not evidence at all.

I have no idea why you want to leap from a debate about "evidence" to proclaiming physical principles and laws as if I am unaware of them. They really have nothing to do with each other. There is no evidence needed to support a physical certainty as it is self evident. Yes, things fall when dropped... that's not "evidence" of gravity, that IS gravity working.

Your abiogenesis theories are not physical certainties. They are not principles or laws of physics. They are simply THEORIES which must be supportable by evidence. If you can't support your theories with valid, testable and falsifiable evidence, they are invalid theories. "Invalid" ...there's a word you're probably very familiar with!

.

So we see clearly, what is thought to be "evidence" is sometimes not evidence at all.

I will realize for you the contradictory and meaningless sentence you have used as an explanation for a self evident fact that had nothing whatsoever to do with the subject, evidence. for some inexplicable reason.

are you having a relationship with the creationist ?

don't understand your complaint, not interested in semantics games with a muscle head, no time for deciphering your cryptic nonsense. If you can't understand forums in English, stick to your native tongue.

.

don't understand your complaint, not interested in semantics games with a muscle head, no time for deciphering your cryptic nonsense. If you can't understand forums in English, stick to your native tongue.

That's the funny thing about evidence, you don't have to have to even accept it as evidence. It's entirely subjective.

your initial claim was the evidence itself is subjective then you changed your line to its interpretation -

the elements are evidence there is a universe irregardless their multiple interpretations.

No, the elements are self evident, they are not evidence "of" anything other than themselves. You can subjectively interpret them as such because all "evidence" is subjective.

A-gain... because you're a thick-head... in 1850, the most noted and credible scientists of the time believed that mold was evidence that life could spontaneously generate. The problem was not a lack of evidence. The problem was the evidence wasn't valid because they were missing information. That did not change the fact that evidence existed.

Pasteur proved, through a series of experiments, life cannot spontaneously generate. His "evidence" was the results of his extensive experiments. Not every scientist agreed because they subjectively evaluated his "evidence" differently. Eventually, his findings prevailed and "Biogenesis" was confirmed. To date, it has not been refuted by science.

.

No, the elements are self evident, they are not evidence "of" anything other than themselves. You can subjectively interpret them as such because all "evidence" is subjective.

another itinerantly meaningless and contradictory expose for the denial of reality, those who's apex for understanding is never surmounted.

the periodic table is evidence for the universe.

 

[Boss]

Maybe we have to go through this slowly a few more times because you're a thick-headed moron?

"Evidence" is a curious thing. In the 1850s, scientists believed life could spontaneously generate. This was the prevailing scientific theory of the day and it was supported by the "evidence." What WAS that evidence? Mold and fungi! Of course, as it turns out, mold and fungus aren't evidence of spontaneous generation but scientists didn't know that at the time. So we see clearly, what is thought to be "evidence" is sometimes not evidence at all.

I have no idea why you want to leap from a debate about "evidence" to proclaiming physical principles and laws as if I am unaware of them. They really have nothing to do with each other. There is no evidence needed to support a physical certainty as it is self evident. Yes, things fall when dropped... that's not "evidence" of gravity, that IS gravity working.

Your abiogenesis theories are not physical certainties. They are not principles or laws of physics. They are simply THEORIES which must be supportable by evidence. If you can't support your theories with valid, testable and falsifiable evidence, they are invalid theories. "Invalid" ...there's a word you're probably very familiar with!

.

So we see clearly, what is thought to be "evidence" is sometimes not evidence at all.

I will realize for you the contradictory and meaningless sentence you have used as an explanation for a self evident fact that had nothing whatsoever to do with the subject, evidence. for some inexplicable reason.

are you having a relationship with the creationist ?

don't understand your complaint, not interested in semantics games with a muscle head, no time for deciphering your cryptic nonsense. If you can't understand forums in English, stick to your native tongue.

.

don't understand your complaint, not interested in semantics games with a muscle head, no time for deciphering your cryptic nonsense. If you can't understand forums in English, stick to your native tongue.

That's the funny thing about evidence, you don't have to have to even accept it as evidence. It's entirely subjective.

your initial claim was the evidence itself is subjective then you changed your line to its interpretation -

the elements are evidence there is a universe irregardless their multiple interpretations.

No, the elements are self evident, they are not evidence "of" anything other than themselves. You can subjectively interpret them as such because all "evidence" is subjective.

A-gain... because you're a thick-head... in 1850, the most noted and credible scientists of the time believed that mold was evidence that life could spontaneously generate. The problem was not a lack of evidence. The problem was the evidence wasn't valid because they were missing information. That did not change the fact that evidence existed.

Pasteur proved, through a series of experiments, life cannot spontaneously generate. His "evidence" was the results of his extensive experiments. Not every scientist agreed because they subjectively evaluated his "evidence" differently. Eventually, his findings prevailed and "Biogenesis" was confirmed. To date, it has not been refuted by science.

.

No, the elements are self evident, they are not evidence "of" anything other than themselves. You can subjectively interpret them as such because all "evidence" is subjective.

another itinerantly meaningless and contradictory expose for the denial of reality, those who's apex for understanding is never surmounted.

the periodic table is evidence for the universe.

If you prefer to be willfully ignorant of the terminology and context that's on you babe.

You have quite literally proven my point that all "evidence" is subjective. Thank you very much!

 

[RWS]

I've posted this before, and you've all seen it before, but it's classic...

I appreciate the humor and there are con artists in the religious world, just like there are con artists in every other walk of life. I didn't watch all of it. I presume George is an atheist???

If you wan to talk about "bullshit", the biggest bullshit ever spread was that the universe created itself and that life came about as a result of some freak accident of chemicals interacting. I mean, you have to be a DUMB mother fucker to buy that scam.

Well you didn't watch all of it... that says it all!

Where did you stop?

 

[RWS]

.
I will realize for you the contradictory and meaningless sentence you have used as an explanation for a self evident fact that had nothing whatsoever to do with the subject, evidence. for some inexplicable reason.

are you having a relationship with the creationist ?

don't understand your complaint, not interested in semantics games with a muscle head, no time for deciphering your cryptic nonsense. If you can't understand forums in English, stick to your native tongue.

.

don't understand your complaint, not interested in semantics games with a muscle head, no time for deciphering your cryptic nonsense. If you can't understand forums in English, stick to your native tongue.

That's the funny thing about evidence, you don't have to have to even accept it as evidence. It's entirely subjective.

your initial claim was the evidence itself is subjective then you changed your line to its interpretation -

the elements are evidence there is a universe irregardless their multiple interpretations.

No, the elements are self evident, they are not evidence "of" anything other than themselves. You can subjectively interpret them as such because all "evidence" is subjective.

A-gain... because you're a thick-head... in 1850, the most noted and credible scientists of the time believed that mold was evidence that life could spontaneously generate. The problem was not a lack of evidence. The problem was the evidence wasn't valid because they were missing information. That did not change the fact that evidence existed.

Pasteur proved, through a series of experiments, life cannot spontaneously generate. His "evidence" was the results of his extensive experiments. Not every scientist agreed because they subjectively evaluated his "evidence" differently. Eventually, his findings prevailed and "Biogenesis" was confirmed. To date, it has not been refuted by science.

.

No, the elements are self evident, they are not evidence "of" anything other than themselves. You can subjectively interpret them as such because all "evidence" is subjective.

another itinerantly meaningless and contradictory expose for the denial of reality, those who's apex for understanding is never surmounted.

the periodic table is evidence for the universe.

If you prefer to be willfully ignorant of the terminology and context that's on you babe.

You have quite literally proven my point that all "evidence" is subjective. Thank you very much!

It doesn't work that way...

You cannot make up stuff and claim it is true just because you say so.

 

[RWS]

And to all of us here, I hope you all survive the impact of Nibiru today!

At the very least, it got a few more people to learn about "Sumer". And the stuff the Sumerians and Assyrian/Babylonians wrote about...

 

[BreezeWood]

.
I will realize for you the contradictory and meaningless sentence you have used as an explanation for a self evident fact that had nothing whatsoever to do with the subject, evidence. for some inexplicable reason.

are you having a relationship with the creationist ?

don't understand your complaint, not interested in semantics games with a muscle head, no time for deciphering your cryptic nonsense. If you can't understand forums in English, stick to your native tongue.

.

don't understand your complaint, not interested in semantics games with a muscle head, no time for deciphering your cryptic nonsense. If you can't understand forums in English, stick to your native tongue.

That's the funny thing about evidence, you don't have to have to even accept it as evidence. It's entirely subjective.

your initial claim was the evidence itself is subjective then you changed your line to its interpretation -

the elements are evidence there is a universe irregardless their multiple interpretations.

No, the elements are self evident, they are not evidence "of" anything other than themselves. You can subjectively interpret them as such because all "evidence" is subjective.

A-gain... because you're a thick-head... in 1850, the most noted and credible scientists of the time believed that mold was evidence that life could spontaneously generate. The problem was not a lack of evidence. The problem was the evidence wasn't valid because they were missing information. That did not change the fact that evidence existed.

Pasteur proved, through a series of experiments, life cannot spontaneously generate. His "evidence" was the results of his extensive experiments. Not every scientist agreed because they subjectively evaluated his "evidence" differently. Eventually, his findings prevailed and "Biogenesis" was confirmed. To date, it has not been refuted by science.

.

No, the elements are self evident, they are not evidence "of" anything other than themselves. You can subjectively interpret them as such because all "evidence" is subjective.

another itinerantly meaningless and contradictory expose for the denial of reality, those who's apex for understanding is never surmounted.

the periodic table is evidence for the universe.

If you prefer to be willfully ignorant of the terminology and context that's on you babe.

You have quite literally proven my point that all "evidence" is subjective. Thank you very much!

.

If you prefer to be willfully ignorant of the terminology and context that's on you babe.

You have quite literally proven my point that all "evidence" is subjective. Thank you very much!

you are not reality that much you have proven.

 

[K9Buck]

don't understand your complaint, not interested in semantics games with a muscle head, no time for deciphering your cryptic nonsense. If you can't understand forums in English, stick to your native tongue.

.

don't understand your complaint, not interested in semantics games with a muscle head, no time for deciphering your cryptic nonsense. If you can't understand forums in English, stick to your native tongue.

That's the funny thing about evidence, you don't have to have to even accept it as evidence. It's entirely subjective.

your initial claim was the evidence itself is subjective then you changed your line to its interpretation -

the elements are evidence there is a universe irregardless their multiple interpretations.

No, the elements are self evident, they are not evidence "of" anything other than themselves. You can subjectively interpret them as such because all "evidence" is subjective.

A-gain... because you're a thick-head... in 1850, the most noted and credible scientists of the time believed that mold was evidence that life could spontaneously generate. The problem was not a lack of evidence. The problem was the evidence wasn't valid because they were missing information. That did not change the fact that evidence existed.

Pasteur proved, through a series of experiments, life cannot spontaneously generate. His "evidence" was the results of his extensive experiments. Not every scientist agreed because they subjectively evaluated his "evidence" differently. Eventually, his findings prevailed and "Biogenesis" was confirmed. To date, it has not been refuted by science.

.

No, the elements are self evident, they are not evidence "of" anything other than themselves. You can subjectively interpret them as such because all "evidence" is subjective.

another itinerantly meaningless and contradictory expose for the denial of reality, those who's apex for understanding is never surmounted.

the periodic table is evidence for the universe.

If you prefer to be willfully ignorant of the terminology and context that's on you babe.

You have quite literally proven my point that all "evidence" is subjective. Thank you very much!

.

If you prefer to be willfully ignorant of the terminology and context that's on you babe.

You have quite literally proven my point that all "evidence" is subjective. Thank you very much!

you are not reality that much you have proven.

Your posts would be easier to read and understand if you used proper grammar and sentence structure.

 

[Taz]

So god didn't make the aliens? Then who did?

 

[K9Buck]

So god didn't make the aliens? Then who did?

Mexicans, of course.

 

[Boss]

the periodic table is evidence for the universe.

This is amusing... since everything comprising the periodic table is only 4% of the universe.

 

[Boss]

don't understand your complaint, not interested in semantics games with a muscle head, no time for deciphering your cryptic nonsense. If you can't understand forums in English, stick to your native tongue.

.

don't understand your complaint, not interested in semantics games with a muscle head, no time for deciphering your cryptic nonsense. If you can't understand forums in English, stick to your native tongue.

That's the funny thing about evidence, you don't have to have to even accept it as evidence. It's entirely subjective.

your initial claim was the evidence itself is subjective then you changed your line to its interpretation -

the elements are evidence there is a universe irregardless their multiple interpretations.

No, the elements are self evident, they are not evidence "of" anything other than themselves. You can subjectively interpret them as such because all "evidence" is subjective.

A-gain... because you're a thick-head... in 1850, the most noted and credible scientists of the time believed that mold was evidence that life could spontaneously generate. The problem was not a lack of evidence. The problem was the evidence wasn't valid because they were missing information. That did not change the fact that evidence existed.

Pasteur proved, through a series of experiments, life cannot spontaneously generate. His "evidence" was the results of his extensive experiments. Not every scientist agreed because they subjectively evaluated his "evidence" differently. Eventually, his findings prevailed and "Biogenesis" was confirmed. To date, it has not been refuted by science.

.

No, the elements are self evident, they are not evidence "of" anything other than themselves. You can subjectively interpret them as such because all "evidence" is subjective.

another itinerantly meaningless and contradictory expose for the denial of reality, those who's apex for understanding is never surmounted.

the periodic table is evidence for the universe.

If you prefer to be willfully ignorant of the terminology and context that's on you babe.

You have quite literally proven my point that all "evidence" is subjective. Thank you very much!

It doesn't work that way...

You cannot make up stuff and claim it is true just because you say so.

Sure you can! That's not what I did but that happens all the time. AGW is a good example.

 

[phaethon]

...and tell us there's no God.

That is why scientists like Carl Sagan so eagerly tell us there MUST be life on other planets, but it's a wish, there is no science to back up his claims.

So far, after decades of listening with radio telescopes, the skies have been totally silent.

Either aliens don't exist at all anywhere in the universe, or they are so far away their transmissions will never reach us.

And in either case, we will never have aliens visit us.

We are probably alone.

Carl Sagan was actually a pious man. There's quite a lot of depth in his book about comets. It's unfortunate that he spread the myth of Christians burning down the library of Alexandria, but there's no use in denying that such a mentality has been exhibited in the past.

Nature and Wonder; by Carl Sagan Here's a sample of his writings, he suggests that the current conception of god is too small for the universe. And this is in fact true. It's purely an expression of self-love to think the creator of the vast universe is always occupied with one species on one planet. The planetary supervisor probably has countless things to attend to, some of it he leaves to eternal laws of science, others to equivalents of what people called "gods", and others he entrusts to what could be considered an equivalent of the "guardian angel" concept.

Just because you can't see it with your two eyes doesn't mean it's not there. You Christians have no problem believing in spirits and demons, so you must also admit that it's possible for such beings to exist on other worlds.

If we split an organism's consciousness into three (physical, mental, emotional) and deprive it of only it's physical form, it still remains, but unseen.

Galileo admitted that he fancied that the regions of the moon were animate yet did not assert that life and motion exist there. But he did say that if they existed there, they would be "extremely diverse, and far beyond all our imaginings."

 

[mudwhistle]

...and tell us there's no God.

That is why scientists like Carl Sagan so eagerly tell us there MUST be life on other planets, but it's a wish, there is no science to back up his claims.

So far, after decades of listening with radio telescopes, the skies have been totally silent.

Either aliens don't exist at all anywhere in the universe, or they are so far away their transmissions will never reach us.

And in either case, we will never have aliens visit us.

We are probably alone.

They can't believe that God exists but they can bring themselves to believe that God is an extraterrestrial.

 

[K9Buck]

...and tell us there's no God.

That is why scientists like Carl Sagan so eagerly tell us there MUST be life on other planets, but it's a wish, there is no science to back up his claims.

So far, after decades of listening with radio telescopes, the skies have been totally silent.

Either aliens don't exist at all anywhere in the universe, or they are so far away their transmissions will never reach us.

And in either case, we will never have aliens visit us.

We are probably alone.

They can't believe that God exists but they can bring themselves to believe that God is an extraterrestrial.

They follow ABG theory.

 

[hobelim]

...and tell us there's no God.

That is why scientists like Carl Sagan so eagerly tell us there MUST be life on other planets, but it's a wish, there is no science to back up his claims.

So far, after decades of listening with radio telescopes, the skies have been totally silent.

Either aliens don't exist at all anywhere in the universe, or they are so far away their transmissions will never reach us.

And in either case, we will never have aliens visit us.

We are probably alone.

They can't believe that God exists but they can bring themselves to believe that God is an extraterrestrial.

Yeah, what a mess.

There are even some who profess to believe in God and the existence of heavenly creatures from an otherworldly kingdom who can't bring themselves to believe in extraterrestrial beings...lol.... even though God, angels, and even Jesus himself in the form and shape of a man, were all, by definition, extraterrestrial beings.

"My kingdom is not of this world", "I have come down from heaven", and all that......

 

[MarkDuffy]

don't understand your complaint, not interested in semantics games with a muscle head, no time for deciphering your cryptic nonsense. If you can't understand forums in English, stick to your native tongue.

.

don't understand your complaint, not interested in semantics games with a muscle head, no time for deciphering your cryptic nonsense. If you can't understand forums in English, stick to your native tongue.

That's the funny thing about evidence, you don't have to have to even accept it as evidence. It's entirely subjective.

your initial claim was the evidence itself is subjective then you changed your line to its interpretation -

the elements are evidence there is a universe irregardless their multiple interpretations.

No, the elements are self evident, they are not evidence "of" anything other than themselves. You can subjectively interpret them as such because all "evidence" is subjective.

A-gain... because you're a thick-head... in 1850, the most noted and credible scientists of the time believed that mold was evidence that life could spontaneously generate. The problem was not a lack of evidence. The problem was the evidence wasn't valid because they were missing information. That did not change the fact that evidence existed.

Pasteur proved, through a series of experiments, life cannot spontaneously generate. His "evidence" was the results of his extensive experiments. Not every scientist agreed because they subjectively evaluated his "evidence" differently. Eventually, his findings prevailed and "Biogenesis" was confirmed. To date, it has not been refuted by science.

.

No, the elements are self evident, they are not evidence "of" anything other than themselves. You can subjectively interpret them as such because all "evidence" is subjective.

another itinerantly meaningless and contradictory expose for the denial of reality, those who's apex for understanding is never surmounted.

the periodic table is evidence for the universe.

If you prefer to be willfully ignorant of the terminology and context that's on you babe.

You have quite literally proven my point that all "evidence" is subjective. Thank you very much!

It doesn't work that way...

You cannot make up stuff and claim it is true just because you say so.

Technically he didn't make it up. He stole his BS.

 

[MarkDuffy]

And to all of us here, I hope you all survive the impact of Nibiru today!

At the very least, it got a few more people to learn about "Sumer". And the stuff the Sumerians and Assyrian/Babylonians wrote about...

Naw, we partied hard last night for no reason.

Man who said the world is ending Saturday changed his mind. It isn't actually ending

 

[MarkDuffy]

...and tell us there's no God.

That is why scientists like Carl Sagan so eagerly tell us there MUST be life on other planets, but it's a wish, there is no science to back up his claims.

So far, after decades of listening with radio telescopes, the skies have been totally silent.

Either aliens don't exist at all anywhere in the universe, or they are so far away their transmissions will never reach us.

And in either case, we will never have aliens visit us.

We are probably alone.

They can't believe that God exists but they can bring themselves to believe that God is an extraterrestrial.

I can talk on your side of the field in your terms. I have read the Bible cover to cover several times.

Is God an extraterrestrial?

 

[BreezeWood]

the periodic table is evidence for the universe.

This is amusing... since everything comprising the periodic table is only 4% of the universe.

.

the periodic table is evidence for the universe.

This is amusing... since everything comprising the periodic table is only 4% of the universe.

you've gone over the edge bossy and prove that with each of your irrational posts ... get back in touch with reality, there may still be time for you to recover.

 

[BreezeWood]

.
your initial claim was the evidence itself is subjective then you changed your line to its interpretation -

the elements are evidence there is a universe irregardless their multiple interpretations.

No, the elements are self evident, they are not evidence "of" anything other than themselves. You can subjectively interpret them as such because all "evidence" is subjective.

A-gain... because you're a thick-head... in 1850, the most noted and credible scientists of the time believed that mold was evidence that life could spontaneously generate. The problem was not a lack of evidence. The problem was the evidence wasn't valid because they were missing information. That did not change the fact that evidence existed.

Pasteur proved, through a series of experiments, life cannot spontaneously generate. His "evidence" was the results of his extensive experiments. Not every scientist agreed because they subjectively evaluated his "evidence" differently. Eventually, his findings prevailed and "Biogenesis" was confirmed. To date, it has not been refuted by science.

.

No, the elements are self evident, they are not evidence "of" anything other than themselves. You can subjectively interpret them as such because all "evidence" is subjective.

another itinerantly meaningless and contradictory expose for the denial of reality, those who's apex for understanding is never surmounted.

the periodic table is evidence for the universe.

If you prefer to be willfully ignorant of the terminology and context that's on you babe.

You have quite literally proven my point that all "evidence" is subjective. Thank you very much!

.

If you prefer to be willfully ignorant of the terminology and context that's on you babe.

You have quite literally proven my point that all "evidence" is subjective. Thank you very much!

you are not reality that much you have proven.

Your posts would be easier to read and understand if you used proper grammar and sentence structure.

.

Your posts would be easier to read and understand if you used proper grammar and sentence structure.

so says the creationist retard, hire an English tutor you might be able to decipher the truth from fantasy.