Statistics, God and Estimating

The guy's a ridiculous little troll. He's calling people he doesn't know atheists and says Darwin will get them there. Very damn ridiculous. Maybe he's a leftard trying to give fundies a bad name.

I see you use the term "leftard" which indicates you dislike something about his ideological beliefs.

So do you take objection to him because he's not an atheist or is there some other reason, a rational reason?
 
Back to the ad hominem attacks ... how Christian of you ...

Careful...

1756999015151.webp

Did Christ "ignore" the sinners ... or did He try to save them? ...
 
I have no need to, I have books.

So you agree ChemEngineer is a liar? ... because right there in your book is a description of enzymes ... how is it he doesn't know? ... maybe he's illiterate, or an AI proxy ...

One of your books should say "Blessed are the Peacemakers" ...
 
I asked him (what an enzyme is) ...

Your fabrication. If not, post your question and my response.

After reading books by militant atheist, Richard Dawkins, and Isaac Asimov, and agnostic Carl Sagan, I critiqued them and sent my critiques to their publishers or to them personally. All three replied to me, the first two with typical bitter hatefulness which utterly failed to address my critiques of their many errors and contradictions.

I sold Carl Sagan's letter response on E-Bay for $125 many years ago, and Isaac Asimov's postcard for $75.

My book, cited below, discusses many of the incredible works of science by the Brilliant Creator. One of the first five-star reviews is by a medical doctor, who called it "Beyond incredible... required reading for every literate person."

So tell everyone about your magnificent achievements, Reiny Liar. Impress away.

I won't be reading any more of your blather, however. I had to take you off ignore to read your nonsense cited above, and I am sorry that I did. You always subtract from the sum total of human knowledge.

"Let him who hath no sword sell his garment and buy one." - Jesus Christ

Swords are not used for plowing.
 
Your fabrication. If not, post your question and my response.

After reading books by militant atheist, Richard Dawkins, and Isaac Asimov, and agnostic Carl Sagan, I critiqued them and sent my critiques to their publishers or to them personally. All three replied to me, the first two with typical bitter hatefulness which utterly failed to address my critiques of their many errors and contradictions.

I sold Carl Sagan's letter response on E-Bay for $125 many years ago, and Isaac Asimov's postcard for $75.

My book, cited below, discusses many of the incredible works of science by the Brilliant Creator. One of the first five-star reviews is by a medical doctor, who called it "Beyond incredible... required reading for every literate person."

So tell everyone about your magnificent achievements, Reiny Liar. Impress away.

I won't be reading any more of your blather, however. I had to take you off ignore to read your nonsense cited above, and I am sorry that I did. You always subtract from the sum total of human knowledge.

"Let him who hath no sword sell his garment and buy one." - Jesus Christ

Swords are not used for plowing.

You still can't say what an enzyme is ... just pathetic ...

Instead of cross-threading ... how about you rebut my comments in post #15 ... so far, all you've done here is commensurate with a twelve-year-old child ...

"It's the liar who has to scream all the time" ...
 
ChemEngineer would you kindly tell me what this is about I don't care to re read the OP and I think you should have enough wit to explain yourself. I vaguely remember it has to do with fractal geometry of the atom?
 
ChemEngineer would you kindly tell me what this is about I don't care to re read the OP and I think you should have enough wit to explain yourself. I vaguely remember it has to do with fractal geometry of the atom?
You don't remember? But you "don't care" to re-read the OP, so you want me to rewrite it? I "don't care" to repeat myself. Go back and read it. Don't be so lazy. It's really not difficult.
 
You don't remember? But you "don't care" to re-read the OP, so you want me to rewrite it? I "don't care" to repeat myself. Go back and read it. Don't be so lazy. It's really not difficult.

Oh c'mon papa ... you love reading your own text ... maybe explain why something that occurred is "impossible" ... if it happened, then it's not impossible ... don't be lazy ...
 
15th post
Pretend sanctimonious atheists snark piously at Christians, oblivious to Jesus' acts of beating the unfaithful in His temple:

John 2:15 And when he had made a scourge of small cords, he drove them all out of the temple, and the sheep, and the oxen; and poured out the changers' money, and overthrew the tables;
 
Pretend sanctimonious atheists snark piously at Christians, oblivious to Jesus' acts of beating the unfaithful in His temple:

John 2:15 And when he had made a scourge of small cords, he drove them all out of the temple, and the sheep, and the oxen; and poured out the changers' money, and overthrew the tables;
Jesus got violent? :o
 
Furthermore, in respect of human rationality itself , like also begets like, and the reason that our cognitive faculties are capable of perceiving truth and reasoning correctly is that they too—when functioning properly in their intended environment—operate as intelligently designed systems that have the formation of true beliefs as their purpose. Only under such conditions does our unspoken faith in human reason make sense. - The Rise of Naturalism and its Problematic Rolein Science and Culture, by Bruce L. Gordon (page 6)
 
Back
Top Bottom