Impersonations

BTW, Dan, I loved your post Edited by Admin, : Edit to remove attempted hack.

quote:

---

All I said was I don’t believe in God

---

As I said in posts #1, #2, #4, #7, #10, #11, #12, and #15, I believe that non-belief is impossible not to non-falsify. The difference between atheism and agnosticism is not just about belief or non-belief, it’s also about the absence of non-belief.

quote:

---

Why are you milking this damn subject so much

---

Because I’m saying the subject is a non-subject, because the belief or non-belief in an entity or non-entity can’t be falsified, unfalsified or unproven. Didn’t you read my posts here or here orhere orhere or even here??

quote:

---

You win, enough’s enough, I think we agree anyway

---

I never said we didn’t. But how can you be so certain? Whether or not the certainty or uncertainty of an agreement or nonagreement is proof of anything or evidence against anything, we still have to consider our ability or inability to detect the existence or nonexistence or unexistence of an entity or nonentity.Is that clear? I'll expound more in the next post.

Hi Rei,You have far too much free time - beautiful job!--Percy

dont listen to them, they worship there theory as if it were god, and ignore all the evidence against evilution. i was in colorado this summer, and you can see where they cut out the road there are seashells in the rock! the evolutinists pretend that this place was underwater before and then was pushed up by earthquakes, but they've never found the fault line. a few miles away from my home, they found a whale buried at a 45% angle, and with it there was a bunch of indian artefacts. The curious thing about Darwinists is that they are unwilling to admit their mistakes. Stephen J. Gould, professor of evolution at Yale, admitted as much in 1993, when he said, "... [Evolutionists] couldn't find [evidence] ... we were forced to [piece it together] ... from fossils in lower strata."14. They conveniently ignore the shocking discoveries, such as the decay of the Earth's magnetic field, dinosaur bones found in with campfire logs, and the abnormal levels of radiocarbon in the early atmosphere.15. evryone knows that the flood reshaped the world; it happened when the vapor canope that let everything grow big and blocked radioactive carbon from falling in from space collapsed. only a great flood could have produced the marianas trench and pikes peak. you can tell that the earth is young becaus stallagtittes are forming on the lincon (sp?) memorial, and evolutinists say they can't form that quickly, but ive been there and you can see them. besides, if we evolved from monkeys, why are monkeys still here???------------------
"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

Sorry it took me so long to reply, I had to post a half dozen replies on other threads. Only two more posts and I make my quota. Where were we?

quote:

---

We don't believe in God. We AGREE. Why do you keep going??

---

I know. I agree one hundred percent.But look at it another way. Depending on how we define our terms, we can't be definite about how to come to terms with our definitions. You seem to think the presence of the absence of evidence is proof of the presence of absence. I'm saying that proof of presence would be evidence for the absence of evidence for absence, but maybe it's just the absence of the presence of proof. Didn't you read this post or this one or this doozy here orthis one or I forgot aboutthis one here??In other words, being objective about it, it's too subjective for a definitive answer. But the subject being subjective, there may be a way to be definitive as long as that's our object. That's all I'm saying. For now, anyway.

Can I just say this is the funniest freakin' thread I've read in a long time?!!Are we allowed to nominate an entire thread for best posts of the month?

ROFL!!

i can see that this Thread is intended to make fun at those People we have been arguing with. clears it up then? I don't know what you guys think of me but i will snap at the next Guy that attempts to equate evolutionist with atheist. got That?[with all apologies to D***]

Rei,

quote:

---

According to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, 'is' is defined as "to equal in meaning: have the same connotation, as SYMBOLIZE". Why do you continually try and manipulate language to suit your fundamentalist purposes?

---

Amazing.------------------
I would not let the chickens cross the antidote road because I was already hospitlized for trying to say this!-Brad McFall

quote:

---

presence would be evidence for the absence of evidence for absence

---

MrHambre, methinks you are not qualified to elaborate on evidence. Define evidence? You don't know what "evidence" is. Tell us all what you think evidence is! I know what evidence is since I get paid 95$ a second in legal fees and for my skill at running after amublances. I am a legal expert so I know what evdence is! What kind of education background do you have? Not much given your lack of logical thinking. In a court of law your theory would be convicted of murder especially that abiogenesis "story" in your "evidence". Get with the program.You see presence of absence is evidence of lack of evidence which constitutes a reasonable doubt, just like your pet theories. Convince us otherwise.Silly boy

The impersonation is rubbish IMO for referring to Plavsic's meanderings about deformed muslims.On the origin of gibberish, by means of authoritive flubber
(the mechanism of differential lightintensity success of stars, and like mechanisms)The origin of the enormous variety in stars, and their extraordinary suitability to emit light into the environment has often been a subject of great scientific interest. Finally Charles Darwin's cousin, Francis Darwin shed his own comparitive dimly light on the subject, one of the few great glimmerings in human understanding.First we take two variations of stars and measure their lightintensity. The difference would be for instance 5 units of lightintensity against 3 units.Second, there is no second, this is it, this explains the origin of variety of stars.The difference in goodness of stars in their perfection to emit light succesfully, is what lead to the great variety in stars we see in the sky. The superior stars which are the best, shine more light then the inferior ones. The purpose of a star is to emit light, that is why the star exists. It's every star's sole reason for being. In the ruthless struggle to emit light, stars don't help other, they are selfish. I do not advocate selfishness, it's just a factual observation that Nature made stars selfish.As you can see you can apply this law of selfishness to each and every object in Nature, to stars to organisms, and most importantly to ourselves. In our quest for succefully progressing ourselves to perfection, we might learn something from dogbreeders who have been tirellesly improving dogs based on this law of Nature for centuries already. The knowledge acquired is thus: If the selfish bitch seems healthy to produce many selfish bastards then goodness will be increased by mating, but if the selfish bitch seems unlikely to produce any selfish bastards then remember you can still increase your goodness by killing the selfish bitch.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

OK I give up, was it 'Son of Sam'?

That was the best impersonation of Syamsu I think I have ever seen!

the theory of evolution does not explain the big bang, the oort cloud, or why one of my socks is missing after doing laundry so it is wrong. Why do scientists keep avoiding these questions?by the way, here is an actual picture of a skull that disproves evolution from some French museum that I could not find -----------------------
"I AM NOT THE MESSENJAH"

You obviously have a major reading comprehension problem. Why don't you try and put aside your sleeping-with-a-bible fundyism and learn some real science. For instance:IM Obscure, F Flintstone, BA Rubble, NO Clue,
The challenge of information decay: the stochastic corrector model vs. hypercycles in bird populations.
J Theor Biol, Jul 2002; 217(2): 167-81."We study the mutation rate for ten enzyme loci (a-glycerophospate dehydrogenase, malate dehydrogenase-L, alcohol dehydrogenase, icocitrate dehydrogenase, esterase-6, etc) and have discovered that Dolichonyx oryzivorus can injest D. melanogaster without first dewinging the arthropods. This is not unreasonable if the mutations include deleterious mutations of the lac operon at the rate of 4.5 x 10^-6 per loci per generation. In addition, the 1256 basepair enhancer-promoter of the mouse muscle creatine kinase gene includes three CAnnTG E-boxes that are conserved among mammals and have flanking and middle sequences conforming to consensus Muscle Regulatory Factor binding sites. This study seeks to determine whether these E-boxes are critical for muscle creatine kinase expression in physiologically distinct muscles. Mutations of the "Right" and "Left" E-boxes in the enhancer decreased expression in cultured skeletal myocytes ~10-fold and 2-fold, respectively, while a "Promoter" E-box mutation had little effect on the ability of Genyornis to consume insects. However, a 897-kb sequence of a cluster of olfactory receptor (OR) genes located at the distal end of the major histocompatibility complex (MHC) class I region on mouse chromosome 17 of strain 129/SvJ (H2bc) does provide conclusive evidence that the dominance of one genetic artifact over another in a particular migratory species of mice depends on environment and the particular problems the species faces. Which of course, is entirely consistent with evolutionary theories and natural selection."The above abstract conclusively proves that your flood couldn't have happened. It also shows convincingly that positive mutations in the lac operon of fruitflies adds information to the genome.