Peanut Gallery

Ok, I think Mazzy is doing a good job too...crashfrog. I suspect you'll disagree.Anyway, who cares what I think, it's only my opinion, who the hell am I?So, why dont YOU tell everyone which Creationists are good contributors if you disagree with everyone I say.Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.

When you say 'holding his own' what exactly do you mean?Buzz has along history of refusing to post any evidence T all and then claiming that he has in other threads. He is also admirably ignorant of anything scientific with superb inability to learn.How exactly are these honest Christian traits helping him to hold his own?If you mean a stoic inability to stop posting in science forum, well then I concede the point.Otherwise, I've no idea what you mean.

Who's Buzz?

Aw, crap.

No, Chuck, ICANT is just being toyed with. He is so clueless to basic science that his insistance on trying to debate relativity is both hilarious and outrageously arrogant. Please don't be impressed by people attempting to argue at levels so far beyond their own expertise. If someone in a debate or argument refuses to back down or acknoweldge their mistake, it does not necessarily mean that they are winning or "holding their own".At the moment I'm trying to get him to understand basic Galilean relativity (i.e pre Newton) and he's failing badly. His problem is that he has no desire to learn. He simply wants to be right. It's not an uncommen problem with those of advanced years.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

Of course I agree cavediver. Maybe I shoulda said he APPEARS to be holding his own. I guess what I mean is, it's impressive he hasn't backed down yet...lol.I didn't mean to imply he was winning at all. Im just impressed with his ability to debate you guys and keep the thing going. Even if he IS being toyed with, he deserves something

Well, you have to admire his stamina! Yep, he definitely does deserve "something"

That sounds like what the sinister guys says in those there movies:"you'll get exactly what you deserve".

Yawn.I will try once again.It is a matter of belief, of faith.It really is that simple.If you hold other beliefs, then of course I am fine with that.

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

Okay, thanks for your opinions.

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

You continually assert this as if it should just be unquestioningly accepted. But it is a false premise. Obviously you didn't read Message 1407Because in this case it is a conclusion based on the description that you provided of something that is defined as being utterly unevidenced. Thus it's conception is necessarily sourced from human imagination. It really is very simple. You are obviously simply incapable of confronting the fact that the concept you call GOD is no more likely to actually exist than any other baselessly conceived figment of human imagination.Why? If you have faith in this thing why do you care?

Thanks for your opinions. Glad you expressed them. Hope you feel better now.I just enjoy laughing at the folk that try to debate about such things, it amuses me.

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

Who decreed that people must obey logic and must have a statistical probability ratio to determine what they choose to believe in? Technically, you are probably correct to say that no one belief is statistically more likely to be true than any other, but keep in mind that you can never be 100% sure about anything. We have but six senses and a multiverse of vast and infinite proportions and unknowable mysteries and laws yet unknown.My question to you, straggler, is why you rely so much on your grasp of science and mathematical probability to determine reality and, moreso, why you insist that others do the same. Lets say for the sake of argument that the statistical odds were infinitesimally small. That is was as un probable as anything you can imagine. Why mustpeople dismiss any belief they cling to?

Are you and I reading the same conversation here?Do you realise that jar actually initiated this conversation by objecting to gods being included in a list of conclusions pertaining to a variety of equally evidentially baseless, unfalsifiable propositions. Message 1332It has since become clear that jar's objection is based on nothing more than highlighting the possibility that evidence based conclusions may not be correct. The same of course applies equally to ALL evidence based conclusions. Including conclusions jar calls facts. And including all of the other conclusions in my list. None of which jar felt the same need to object to.So instead of berating me why don't you ask jar why he is making such objections to some things and not others if he cannot defend his speacial pleading? Is this a debate board or a jar-gets-to-special-plead board? Where have I ever insisted that anyone do anything other than believe whatever they damn well please? Certainly not I. Why does it have to be for the "sake of argument".....?If the thing under consideration is defined as being utterly unevidenced why not just acknowledge that it must therefore be a product of imagination? How can it be otherwise?I have no problem whatsoever with people believing whatever they want. But the false (and seemingly unshakeable) premise that any conclusion about this concept called GOD can only ever be a baseless belief or opinion is really starting to get my goat.And jar's patronising little attitude doesn't help matters either.But - sure - If you want to believe in the existence of things which must be definition be imagined then be my absolute guest. Just have the honesty to accept that this is what you are doing if you are going take part in debates about such things.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.