The only time that supernatural events ever occurred on this planet supposedly only happened during biblical times, oh and before biblical times, just over 6,000 LOL years ago.
Anyone who has turned water into wine since then has been an obvious fake or magician just playing games with our senses.
Now of course, anyone who has read my blog regularly knows that I don't believe that much of anything written in the Old Testament or New Testament ever happened. The closest either bible comes to reality are the events outlined just prior to the OT being written (around 500 BC or so).
There is absolutely no contemporary evidence which remotely verifies a historical Jesus, a historical Abraham, and a historical Moses.
That is why I just laugh when I read stories about people who think they know how Jesus walked on water without it being a supernatural occurrence.
I just read an article speculating on how the Sea parted for Moses.
I believe it has something to do with early brainwashing most of us are exposed to. We actually assume the bible stories to be based on a majority of facts.
This is completely the farthest thing from the truth. If anything the bible stories are based on a minority of facts, and I'm being kind.
This brainwashing creates a different type of skeptic. Someone who is doubtful of supernatural events, yet "smart" enough to figure out how it really LOL happened using physical laws.
OK, I'm not trying to be condescending here. The first forty years of my life I assumed there was a historical Jesus and a historical Moses. But it only takes a teeny amount of research to find there is no credible contemporary evidence, and the only logical conclusion is that Jesus and Moses and their stories were complete fabrications. Unless you take the willfully ignorant route that is, which the majority of people do.
To me, figuring out how Moses got the Sea to part is exactly the same as trying to figure out how the Cat spoke in The Cat In The Hat.
Showing posts with label Jesus. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Jesus. Show all posts
September 25, 2010
January 9, 2010
An Atheist's NFL Predictions
Most who have been following my blog for a while know that I have a passion for the NFL. I play in Fantasy Football leagues, and I've been known to wager on a game or two.
One of my friends asked me for my predictions for the Wild Card Playoff games that start today.
Something weird dawned on me. After giving my picks, I found that I liked all the teams this week that had a (non human) animal as their nickname.
The Cincinnati BENGALS, the Philadelphia EAGLES, the Baltimore RAVENS, and the Arizona CARDINALS are my selections for this week.
Did the fact that my last post had to do with the absurdity of Noah's Ark subconsciously influence my picks? Or did I subconsciously make my selections before I felt compelled to post the Noah's Ark video? Since there is probably no God, the answer to this mystery will never be solved.
Now, I do have a problem not allowing human beings to be also placed under the "animal" classification. But including the New England PATRIOTS, the Dallas COWBOYS, and Green Bay PACKERS as animals would have taken out a lot of material for this particular post I'm making. So just as I am able to empathize with the animal kingdom and support animal rights causes, yet I'm also able to eat meat, I'm also able to accept the biblical definition of animal when it suits my purpose.
Another thing that made me do a double take was the nickname Packers. For my almost 49 years on this planet, I never thought about what Packers are. It would be funny if it is short for Fudge Packers, but alas it is not. So for those who care, here is the history of the Packer name straight out of Wikipedia:
The only team this week that is named after an object is the New York JETS. But other than the Cleveland BROWNS and Buffalo BILLS (which has an animal for a town name and uses the Buffalo as their logo), all other teams are named after either humans or animals.
I don't get why birds are so popular for football teams especially. Meat eating animals are OK though like The Bears.
OK, back to my NFL predictions. So lets say I'm right about the first round. Now here is where it gets trickier. I think Arizona will beat Minnesota and New Orleans will beat Philadelphia next week. The San Diego Chargers will kill the Cincinnati Bengals and the Baltimore Ravens will upset the Indianapolis Colts (of course, Baltimore would have to upset the New England Patriots tomorrow first).
I like Arizona to upset the New Orleans Saints and the San Diego Chargers to take care of Baltimore.
In the Super Bowl, I predict the San Diego Chargers will be victorious.
Incidentally, the Chargers are not named after a credit card customer or an instrument that replenishes batteries. They are actually named after a charging horse (a large strong horse formerly ridden into battle). But evolution reared its ugly head, and the Chargers lost the horse, and now only have a lightning bolt associated with them.
The horse's head (never on the helmet) went extinct after the 1973 season.
So much for irreducible complexity. According to Intelligent Design Theory, one would have to think that if you took out something as functional as a horse's head, the system would cease to exist. Apparently the lightning bolt is still thriving and so are the San Diego Chargers.
Last year, I'm still upset that Jesus didn't help Arizona Cardinal's quarterback Kurt Warner win the Super Bowl. He made it close, but allowed a divine miracle to occur right near the end of the game when Santonio Holmes made an unbelievable catch:
Jesus and God, I still can't figure out if they are one and the same at times, have done a great job to make it seem that there is randomness to who they favour and who they let win NFL football games.
There could be another explanation. It has been 10 since Jesus and God bet on Kurt Warner in the Super Bowl. Why do God and Jesus need to bet? I'll let the theologians chime in and answer that one. I'm sure they'll come up with a reason.
One of my friends asked me for my predictions for the Wild Card Playoff games that start today.
Something weird dawned on me. After giving my picks, I found that I liked all the teams this week that had a (non human) animal as their nickname.
The Cincinnati BENGALS, the Philadelphia EAGLES, the Baltimore RAVENS, and the Arizona CARDINALS are my selections for this week.
Did the fact that my last post had to do with the absurdity of Noah's Ark subconsciously influence my picks? Or did I subconsciously make my selections before I felt compelled to post the Noah's Ark video? Since there is probably no God, the answer to this mystery will never be solved.
Now, I do have a problem not allowing human beings to be also placed under the "animal" classification. But including the New England PATRIOTS, the Dallas COWBOYS, and Green Bay PACKERS as animals would have taken out a lot of material for this particular post I'm making. So just as I am able to empathize with the animal kingdom and support animal rights causes, yet I'm also able to eat meat, I'm also able to accept the biblical definition of animal when it suits my purpose.
Another thing that made me do a double take was the nickname Packers. For my almost 49 years on this planet, I never thought about what Packers are. It would be funny if it is short for Fudge Packers, but alas it is not. So for those who care, here is the history of the Packer name straight out of Wikipedia:
Curly Lambeau, the team's founder, solicited funds for uniforms from his employer, the Indian Packing Company. He was given $500 for uniforms and equipment, on condition that the team be named for its sponsor (a similar event would occur the following year with the Decatur Staleys, who later became the Chicago Bears). An early newspaper article referred to the new Green Bay team as "the Indians" but by the time they played their first game they had adopted the name "Packers."
In the early days, the Packers also were referred to as the "Bays" and the "Blues" (and even occasionally as "the Big Bay Blues"). These never were official nicknames, although Lambeau did consider replacing "Packers" with "Blues" in the 1920s.
In 1920, the Indian Packing Company was purchased by the Acme Packing Company. Acme continued its support of Lambeau's team, and in its first season in the NFL the team wore jerseys with the words "ACME PACKERS" emblazoned on the chest.
The only team this week that is named after an object is the New York JETS. But other than the Cleveland BROWNS and Buffalo BILLS (which has an animal for a town name and uses the Buffalo as their logo), all other teams are named after either humans or animals.
I don't get why birds are so popular for football teams especially. Meat eating animals are OK though like The Bears.
OK, back to my NFL predictions. So lets say I'm right about the first round. Now here is where it gets trickier. I think Arizona will beat Minnesota and New Orleans will beat Philadelphia next week. The San Diego Chargers will kill the Cincinnati Bengals and the Baltimore Ravens will upset the Indianapolis Colts (of course, Baltimore would have to upset the New England Patriots tomorrow first).
I like Arizona to upset the New Orleans Saints and the San Diego Chargers to take care of Baltimore.
In the Super Bowl, I predict the San Diego Chargers will be victorious.
Incidentally, the Chargers are not named after a credit card customer or an instrument that replenishes batteries. They are actually named after a charging horse (a large strong horse formerly ridden into battle). But evolution reared its ugly head, and the Chargers lost the horse, and now only have a lightning bolt associated with them.
The horse's head (never on the helmet) went extinct after the 1973 season.
So much for irreducible complexity. According to Intelligent Design Theory, one would have to think that if you took out something as functional as a horse's head, the system would cease to exist. Apparently the lightning bolt is still thriving and so are the San Diego Chargers.
Last year, I'm still upset that Jesus didn't help Arizona Cardinal's quarterback Kurt Warner win the Super Bowl. He made it close, but allowed a divine miracle to occur right near the end of the game when Santonio Holmes made an unbelievable catch:
Jesus and God, I still can't figure out if they are one and the same at times, have done a great job to make it seem that there is randomness to who they favour and who they let win NFL football games.
There could be another explanation. It has been 10 since Jesus and God bet on Kurt Warner in the Super Bowl. Why do God and Jesus need to bet? I'll let the theologians chime in and answer that one. I'm sure they'll come up with a reason.
March 26, 2009
Why Do Cretards Need To Email Atheists?
I got into another typical exchange I didn't ask for, and couldn't be bothered to handle one on one. The fact that this Cretard obviously doesn't understand what evolution is, made it futile for me to go on with anything he was spewing in my direction.
Here is his first email:
Hello,
I was going over a post and saw a comment from you and it caught my attention. I notice you are atheist. I am Christian. Please know I am not a fundamentalist. I was raised in a Christian environment but had made some wonderful atheist friends. Truth is, I learned more about the Bible than I did from the fundamentalist Christians. I also dealt with them attacking me for questioning the Bible and God. However, instead of giving up, I continued to search. I found that most atheists have no background in ancient history. Even Israel Finkelstein's own minimalist peers doubt his dating system. Professor William Dever was one of the icons of the minimalists until he went to Israel himself and found that there was indeed a historical Israel. Contrary to one comment, the Bible is the best history book anywhere of anytime. Please see my website at meforevidence.googlepages.com These are Powerpoint presentations of almost the whole Bible where ancient history and archeology supports the Bible. Professor Dever changed his views and said that most minimalists are becoming the very people they were trying to attack because they are so much into their own agenda, they miss the evidence. Now, I understand that even if the Bible is a history book, this does not prove there is a God or gods. However, please consider the following.
The only two leading theories we have today are evolution and creationism. Evolution is a theory that contradicts so many Natural laws. The first one is the law of bio-genesis which states that life must come from life. Even Richard Dawkins said we do not know where life comes from or how it started and yet the very foundation of the theory is that everything came from nothing which formed not only into matter and enerty, but life, emotions and intelligence as we have it today. Archeology has proven that the oldest civilizations arose in the fertile cresent which is exactly where the Bible states it started and civilization arose suddenly. Every major civilization had seven days and all continents have a creation and flood story. This defies evolution instead of supports it. Most of the so called existing myths were actually taken from the Bible instead of the other way around. One example would be the epic of Gilgimesh. Most people do not know that even though the original text is older, there were several versions and the first one to include the flood story was dated later than 700 BC which is hundreds of years later than several Hebrew Archeological finds. You will see this in my presentations.
I want you to know that I am not one to argue. I like to think of this as a court case and not an arguement. Lets look at the evidence and go from there. I hope you understand that I don't mind sitting down with respectul people and having a discussion, but disrespect will end the conversation. I have been a follower of American Atheist for years and follow Sam Harris' books and even some of his debates. I too have a background in Neurology and Psychology and Communications. I admit there are many things done in the name of religion that are psychotic and unethical (if there is such a thing ;) ) and can be very hateful and unfriendly. Many of my Muslim and Hindu and Atheist friends are kinder than many so called Christians I know. I guess the bottom line is, if there is not God, then all of our philosophies are equal not matter what they are and let's hope that the more peaceful of us all will survive. You and I know there are bad people of every tradition and belief and good. I hope we can begin a dialogue. If not, I respect that. I wish you peace and happiness.
meforevidence
My first reply:
Sorry. Many atheists do have a good knowledge of ancient history. Evolution and biogenesis are two completely separate issues. If you deny evolution you deny reality. View Potholer54's youtube videos and you might learn something.
There is absolutely no scientific evidence for the Flood. As for the Exodus...no chance it happened. And Jesus was nothing more than a dream and later he was given a real life that paralleled Dionysus.
I have absolutely no interest in visiting the web site of someone who denies science. Sorry.
His next reply:
You are wrong.
See: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rq64qX7bNNU&feature=related
and: see my website New Testament Was Jesus taken from Myth?
meforevidence.googlepages.com
This is not opinion. This is fact. You say what you do not know about. You may not believe in a God or Jesus but please at least look at the evidence, not simply take statements made by other modern atheists who do not even know enough about the myths to teach what they are teaching.
My reply:
Sorry dude. I am right. 100%. Jesus never existed. And the fact you don't know the difference between biogenesis and evolution means you really need to understand evolution more before you bother atheists like me with your fairy tales.
His reply:
I never said there was not a difference. In fact, that is my point. They conflict each other. Evolution demands that life came from non-living matter. Biogenesis states that life comes from life.
Do you care to point out just one of your examples of why Jesus did not exist? It is one thing to say it but quite another to back it up. Did you know that the best debate on the historical Jesus I ever found is from an atheist? He scoffs at the few ten year outdated theororists will not look into the hitory.
“Does the "Jesus-myth" have any scholarly support? In this case, to simply say "no" would be an exaggeration! Support for the "Jesus-myth" comes not from historians, but usually from writers operating far out of their field.
G. A. Wells, for example, is a professor of German;
Drews was a professor of mathematics;
Acharya only has a lower degree in classics;
Doherty has some qualifications, but clearly lacks the discipline of a true scholar. In fact, Doherty’s own atheist peers criticize him for his lack of evidentiary support and references. Call him an “amateur” and criticise him for claiming victory without providing evidence and reference… (infidels.org.)
The greatest support for the "Jesus-myth" comes not from people who know the subject, but from popularizers and those who accept their work uncritically. It is this latter group that we are most likely to encounter - and sadly, arguments and evidence seldom faze them. In spite of the fact that relevant scholarly consensus is unanimous that the "Jesus-myth" is incorrect, it continues to be promulgated on a popular level as though it were absolute”
http://www.tektonics.org/jesusexist/jesusexisthub.html
What do leading atheist say?
James Still “Most scholars believe that a real, flesh and blood Jewish peasant whom we call Jesus lived and taught in first-century, What they disagree on is what he was like.”
Bernard D. Muller
(Debating Earl Doherty on the Historical Person of Jesus)
Once again, despite Doherty's efforts, the evidence points strongly to a human Jesus on earth. In Paul's epistles & 'Hebrews', he is described as a man and a descendant of Abraham, Israelites, the tribe of Judah, Jesse & David and also requiring a woman in order to "come" as a Jew. "The one man Jesus Christ" "humbled himself" in a world of "flesh & blood", as one of them, among sinners, some opposing him. There he was tempted (in the same way as other humans) and heard by (earthly) witnesses. This Jesus, at one time an apostle, had a brother called James, whom Paul met several times and Josephus knew about. His "manifestation", suffering and "sacrifice" happened in the near past (relative to the "ministries" of Paul and the author of 'Hebrews').
Against these, the best that Earl can do is to raise some doubts or/and mistreat the evidence.”
http://www.geocities.com/b_d_muller/djp2.html
My reply (I couldn't even bother reading his entire email this time by the way):
You are wasting my time. Honestly, your tactics and knowledge are horrible. You must get blown off big time by atheists like me.
I have many links on my blog to do with the fact that Jesus most probably never existed.
You are living a lie.
And no, evolution doesn't demand that life came from non living matter. You are clueless. Watch Potholer54's videos before you make yourself a fool again emailing atheists.
Bye.
His reply:
I am sorry to have wasted your time. I would very much like to watch the videos on youtube.
Take care and Peace.
My reply (I made an error thinking I could help someone who is a wilfully ignorant moron):
Here you go. Learn before you email someone else:
http://www.youtube.com/user/potholer54
These are not my videos. But if you watch them you will find out what science knows.
His reply:
I will watch but one thing I noticed is that you did not once back up what you have said. You simply stated many things that are untrue. I don't even have to refer to links to debate you but the difference is that I could show evidence. You ramble but do not support what you say. A common tradition for novices.
You need to educate yourself. Not so much on religion but history. You will find many flaws in your arguements. You can not do it yourself so you refer to "links" out siide of your own knowledge. Most Creationists and Evolutionists do not disagree on science (math, geography, etc). They disagree on origins of which both are only theories. If you can prove evolution, you will be very rich because so far, nobody has been able to do it. One can not prove God either, but I can at least admit it.
I have also wasted my time. You refuse to look at both sides, something that I chose to do. I see the falicies with many creationists as well, however most evidences found against evolution were found on evolutionists sites. Professor Michael Denton (also an atheist) said that evolution is in trouble because science has controdicted rather than support evolution and other evolutionists are still amazed that the Hackles drawings are still in the British and US textooks because this myth was exposed long ago when embryology had access to photos rather than relying on primitive drawings.
You refuse to provide evidence or back up any of your statements. In court, you would be laughed at. Slandering the opponant will not get you anywhere. Evidence will and you can not show it.
My reply (Again, I only read his email quickly. Lots of spelling mistakes in that email. Must be home schooled):
I've looked at all sides and have read volumes about a historical Jesus and evolution. I didn't ask for a debate. Evolution is not a debatable subject. It just isn't. As for a historical Jesus, there is no point making an argument with you, when so many sites on the internet have gone through pages and pages that show that a historical Jesus is highly unlikely.
And quit mine quoting Denton and Dawkins. You don't understand evolution. It is apparent. And it is mind numbing that you have the nerve to pretend you do.
http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/
His reply:
LOL,
I feel like I am trying to have a discussion with a turnip. You can say what you want. Bottom line is evolution does require that life came from non-living matter. You say otherwise...........back it up and stop just saying you know about it and others do not. I would consider Dawkins and Frank Zindler as scholars even though I disagree with them. They disagree with you on the matter as most evolutionists and creationists alike do. Where did you get this new theory of yours? I have never heard it before. Again, you have failed to give evidence. I will not waste yours or my time anymore.
My final reply (I hope):
I don't say that evolution requires life from non living matter, I say that evolution doesn't have anything to do with that issue. You don't know what evolution is.
You are a clueless turnip, so laugh it up knucklehead. And if you watched the Potholer videos you would know the difference, and you would also see how non life theoretically evolved into the first life form.
I'm publishing your idiocy on my blog for my viewers to laugh at when I have a chance.
Lose my email address. You are a complete waste of space and time.
*******************************************************
Let this be a warning to any other Cretard who wants to waste more of time the email route.
Here is his first email:
Hello,
I was going over a post and saw a comment from you and it caught my attention. I notice you are atheist. I am Christian. Please know I am not a fundamentalist. I was raised in a Christian environment but had made some wonderful atheist friends. Truth is, I learned more about the Bible than I did from the fundamentalist Christians. I also dealt with them attacking me for questioning the Bible and God. However, instead of giving up, I continued to search. I found that most atheists have no background in ancient history. Even Israel Finkelstein's own minimalist peers doubt his dating system. Professor William Dever was one of the icons of the minimalists until he went to Israel himself and found that there was indeed a historical Israel. Contrary to one comment, the Bible is the best history book anywhere of anytime. Please see my website at meforevidence.googlepages.com These are Powerpoint presentations of almost the whole Bible where ancient history and archeology supports the Bible. Professor Dever changed his views and said that most minimalists are becoming the very people they were trying to attack because they are so much into their own agenda, they miss the evidence. Now, I understand that even if the Bible is a history book, this does not prove there is a God or gods. However, please consider the following.
The only two leading theories we have today are evolution and creationism. Evolution is a theory that contradicts so many Natural laws. The first one is the law of bio-genesis which states that life must come from life. Even Richard Dawkins said we do not know where life comes from or how it started and yet the very foundation of the theory is that everything came from nothing which formed not only into matter and enerty, but life, emotions and intelligence as we have it today. Archeology has proven that the oldest civilizations arose in the fertile cresent which is exactly where the Bible states it started and civilization arose suddenly. Every major civilization had seven days and all continents have a creation and flood story. This defies evolution instead of supports it. Most of the so called existing myths were actually taken from the Bible instead of the other way around. One example would be the epic of Gilgimesh. Most people do not know that even though the original text is older, there were several versions and the first one to include the flood story was dated later than 700 BC which is hundreds of years later than several Hebrew Archeological finds. You will see this in my presentations.
I want you to know that I am not one to argue. I like to think of this as a court case and not an arguement. Lets look at the evidence and go from there. I hope you understand that I don't mind sitting down with respectul people and having a discussion, but disrespect will end the conversation. I have been a follower of American Atheist for years and follow Sam Harris' books and even some of his debates. I too have a background in Neurology and Psychology and Communications. I admit there are many things done in the name of religion that are psychotic and unethical (if there is such a thing ;) ) and can be very hateful and unfriendly. Many of my Muslim and Hindu and Atheist friends are kinder than many so called Christians I know. I guess the bottom line is, if there is not God, then all of our philosophies are equal not matter what they are and let's hope that the more peaceful of us all will survive. You and I know there are bad people of every tradition and belief and good. I hope we can begin a dialogue. If not, I respect that. I wish you peace and happiness.
meforevidence
My first reply:
Sorry. Many atheists do have a good knowledge of ancient history. Evolution and biogenesis are two completely separate issues. If you deny evolution you deny reality. View Potholer54's youtube videos and you might learn something.
There is absolutely no scientific evidence for the Flood. As for the Exodus...no chance it happened. And Jesus was nothing more than a dream and later he was given a real life that paralleled Dionysus.
I have absolutely no interest in visiting the web site of someone who denies science. Sorry.
His next reply:
You are wrong.
See: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rq64qX7bNNU&feature=related
and: see my website New Testament Was Jesus taken from Myth?
meforevidence.googlepages.com
This is not opinion. This is fact. You say what you do not know about. You may not believe in a God or Jesus but please at least look at the evidence, not simply take statements made by other modern atheists who do not even know enough about the myths to teach what they are teaching.
My reply:
Sorry dude. I am right. 100%. Jesus never existed. And the fact you don't know the difference between biogenesis and evolution means you really need to understand evolution more before you bother atheists like me with your fairy tales.
His reply:
I never said there was not a difference. In fact, that is my point. They conflict each other. Evolution demands that life came from non-living matter. Biogenesis states that life comes from life.
Do you care to point out just one of your examples of why Jesus did not exist? It is one thing to say it but quite another to back it up. Did you know that the best debate on the historical Jesus I ever found is from an atheist? He scoffs at the few ten year outdated theororists will not look into the hitory.
“Does the "Jesus-myth" have any scholarly support? In this case, to simply say "no" would be an exaggeration! Support for the "Jesus-myth" comes not from historians, but usually from writers operating far out of their field.
G. A. Wells, for example, is a professor of German;
Drews was a professor of mathematics;
Acharya only has a lower degree in classics;
Doherty has some qualifications, but clearly lacks the discipline of a true scholar. In fact, Doherty’s own atheist peers criticize him for his lack of evidentiary support and references. Call him an “amateur” and criticise him for claiming victory without providing evidence and reference… (infidels.org.)
The greatest support for the "Jesus-myth" comes not from people who know the subject, but from popularizers and those who accept their work uncritically. It is this latter group that we are most likely to encounter - and sadly, arguments and evidence seldom faze them. In spite of the fact that relevant scholarly consensus is unanimous that the "Jesus-myth" is incorrect, it continues to be promulgated on a popular level as though it were absolute”
http://www.tektonics.org/jesusexist/jesusexisthub.html
What do leading atheist say?
James Still “Most scholars believe that a real, flesh and blood Jewish peasant whom we call Jesus lived and taught in first-century, What they disagree on is what he was like.”
Bernard D. Muller
(Debating Earl Doherty on the Historical Person of Jesus)
Once again, despite Doherty's efforts, the evidence points strongly to a human Jesus on earth. In Paul's epistles & 'Hebrews', he is described as a man and a descendant of Abraham, Israelites, the tribe of Judah, Jesse & David and also requiring a woman in order to "come" as a Jew. "The one man Jesus Christ" "humbled himself" in a world of "flesh & blood", as one of them, among sinners, some opposing him. There he was tempted (in the same way as other humans) and heard by (earthly) witnesses. This Jesus, at one time an apostle, had a brother called James, whom Paul met several times and Josephus knew about. His "manifestation", suffering and "sacrifice" happened in the near past (relative to the "ministries" of Paul and the author of 'Hebrews').
Against these, the best that Earl can do is to raise some doubts or/and mistreat the evidence.”
http://www.geocities.com/b_d_muller/djp2.html
My reply (I couldn't even bother reading his entire email this time by the way):
You are wasting my time. Honestly, your tactics and knowledge are horrible. You must get blown off big time by atheists like me.
I have many links on my blog to do with the fact that Jesus most probably never existed.
You are living a lie.
And no, evolution doesn't demand that life came from non living matter. You are clueless. Watch Potholer54's videos before you make yourself a fool again emailing atheists.
Bye.
His reply:
I am sorry to have wasted your time. I would very much like to watch the videos on youtube.
Take care and Peace.
My reply (I made an error thinking I could help someone who is a wilfully ignorant moron):
Here you go. Learn before you email someone else:
http://www.youtube.com/user/potholer54
These are not my videos. But if you watch them you will find out what science knows.
His reply:
I will watch but one thing I noticed is that you did not once back up what you have said. You simply stated many things that are untrue. I don't even have to refer to links to debate you but the difference is that I could show evidence. You ramble but do not support what you say. A common tradition for novices.
You need to educate yourself. Not so much on religion but history. You will find many flaws in your arguements. You can not do it yourself so you refer to "links" out siide of your own knowledge. Most Creationists and Evolutionists do not disagree on science (math, geography, etc). They disagree on origins of which both are only theories. If you can prove evolution, you will be very rich because so far, nobody has been able to do it. One can not prove God either, but I can at least admit it.
I have also wasted my time. You refuse to look at both sides, something that I chose to do. I see the falicies with many creationists as well, however most evidences found against evolution were found on evolutionists sites. Professor Michael Denton (also an atheist) said that evolution is in trouble because science has controdicted rather than support evolution and other evolutionists are still amazed that the Hackles drawings are still in the British and US textooks because this myth was exposed long ago when embryology had access to photos rather than relying on primitive drawings.
You refuse to provide evidence or back up any of your statements. In court, you would be laughed at. Slandering the opponant will not get you anywhere. Evidence will and you can not show it.
My reply (Again, I only read his email quickly. Lots of spelling mistakes in that email. Must be home schooled):
I've looked at all sides and have read volumes about a historical Jesus and evolution. I didn't ask for a debate. Evolution is not a debatable subject. It just isn't. As for a historical Jesus, there is no point making an argument with you, when so many sites on the internet have gone through pages and pages that show that a historical Jesus is highly unlikely.
And quit mine quoting Denton and Dawkins. You don't understand evolution. It is apparent. And it is mind numbing that you have the nerve to pretend you do.
http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/
His reply:
LOL,
I feel like I am trying to have a discussion with a turnip. You can say what you want. Bottom line is evolution does require that life came from non-living matter. You say otherwise...........back it up and stop just saying you know about it and others do not. I would consider Dawkins and Frank Zindler as scholars even though I disagree with them. They disagree with you on the matter as most evolutionists and creationists alike do. Where did you get this new theory of yours? I have never heard it before. Again, you have failed to give evidence. I will not waste yours or my time anymore.
My final reply (I hope):
I don't say that evolution requires life from non living matter, I say that evolution doesn't have anything to do with that issue. You don't know what evolution is.
You are a clueless turnip, so laugh it up knucklehead. And if you watched the Potholer videos you would know the difference, and you would also see how non life theoretically evolved into the first life form.
I'm publishing your idiocy on my blog for my viewers to laugh at when I have a chance.
Lose my email address. You are a complete waste of space and time.
*******************************************************
Let this be a warning to any other Cretard who wants to waste more of time the email route.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)