Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > alt.atheism > #2066624 > unrolled thread
| Started by | "Andrew" <andrew.321remov@usa.net> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-02-26 16:53 -0800 |
| Last post | 2016-03-04 12:37 -0800 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 236 — 29 participants |
Back to article view | Back to alt.atheism
Here's Some More Evidence For You "Andrew" <andrew.321remov@usa.net> - 2016-02-26 16:53 -0800
Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You John Locke <johnnydemon666@demonmail.com> - 2016-02-26 18:14 -0800
Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You bilgat@m.nu - 2016-02-26 20:26 -0600
Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> - 2016-02-26 22:09 -0800
Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You John Locke <johnnydemon666@demonmail.com> - 2016-02-26 22:55 -0800
Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> - 2016-02-27 04:06 -0800
Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-02-27 09:03 -0600
Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Mitchell Holman <noemail@verizon.net> - 2016-02-26 21:03 -0600
Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You August Rode <aug.rode@gmail.com> - 2016-02-26 22:33 -0500
Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> - 2016-02-26 22:07 -0800
Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You "Andrew" <andrew.321remov@usa.net> - 2016-02-27 14:09 -0800
Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Greywolf <greywolftheatheist@gmail.com> - 2016-02-27 14:29 -0800
Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Mitchell Holman <noemail@verizon.net> - 2016-02-27 20:34 -0600
Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You August Rode <aug.rode@gmail.com> - 2016-02-27 22:31 -0500
Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You nature bats last <seqklogw@gmail.com> - 2016-02-27 22:31 -0800
Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Malte Runz <noyouare@notgetting.it> - 2016-02-28 13:39 +0100
Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You nature bats last <seqklogw@gmail.com> - 2016-02-26 19:29 -0800
Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Malte Runz <noyouare@notgetting.it> - 2016-02-27 18:33 +0100
Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You nature bats last <seqklogw@gmail.com> - 2016-02-27 10:33 -0800
Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Marvin Sebourn <osugeography@aol.com> - 2016-02-27 14:20 -0800
Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Tim <cyfur12345@gmail.com> - 2016-02-27 06:39 -0800
Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You "Andrew" <andrew.321remov@usa.net> - 2016-02-27 14:04 -0800
Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Tim <cyfur12345@gmail.com> - 2016-02-27 14:16 -0800
Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-02-28 00:31 +0000
Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You hypatiab7 <hypatiab7@comcast.net> - 2016-02-29 03:33 -0800
Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You nature bats last <seqklogw@gmail.com> - 2016-02-27 18:20 -0800
Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Don Martin <drdonmartin@comcast.net> - 2016-02-28 09:22 -0500
Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-02-28 08:33 -0600
Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Don Martin <drdonmartin@comcast.net> - 2016-02-28 12:36 -0500
Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-02-29 00:02 +0000
Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Don Martin <drdonmartin@comcast.net> - 2016-02-29 17:46 -0500
Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-03-01 00:14 +0000
Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Don Martin <drdonmartin@comcast.net> - 2016-03-01 17:52 -0500
Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-03-03 01:16 +0000
Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You hypatiab7 <hypatiab7@comcast.net> - 2016-02-29 03:42 -0800
Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Cloud Hobbit <youngblood2949@gmail.com> - 2016-02-29 14:33 -0800
Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You nature bats last <seqklogw@gmail.com> - 2016-02-29 15:33 -0800
Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Cloud Hobbit <youngblood2949@gmail.com> - 2016-03-01 00:13 -0800
Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Malte Runz <noyouare@notgetting.it> - 2016-02-27 18:16 +0100
Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-02-27 11:44 -0600
Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Don Martin <drdonmartin@comcast.net> - 2016-02-27 16:25 -0500
Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You "Andrew" <andrew.321remov@usa.net> - 2016-02-27 14:29 -0800
Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You nature bats last <seqklogw@gmail.com> - 2016-02-27 18:11 -0800
Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You nature bats last <seqklogw@gmail.com> - 2016-02-27 18:25 -0800
Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Malte Runz <noyouare@notgetting.it> - 2016-02-28 13:19 +0100
Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-02-28 06:34 -0600
Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Cloud Hobbit <youngblood2949@gmail.com> - 2016-02-29 14:40 -0800
Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You nature bats last <seqklogw@gmail.com> - 2016-02-29 15:46 -0800
Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You nature bats last <seqklogw@gmail.com> - 2016-02-27 23:42 -0800
Here's Some More Evidence For You mr.hvac@gmail.com - 2016-02-28 06:59 -0800
Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You nature bats last <seqklogw@gmail.com> - 2016-02-28 07:41 -0800
Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You mr.hvac@gmail.com - 2016-03-01 09:22 -0800
Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You "Andrew" <andrew.321remov@usa.net> - 2016-03-01 09:40 -0800
Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Malte Runz <noyouare@notgetting.it> - 2016-03-01 23:21 +0100
Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-03-01 16:45 -0600
Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You "Andrew" <andrew.321remov@usa.net> - 2016-03-01 17:20 -0800
Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Malte Runz <noyouare@notgetting.it> - 2016-03-03 02:20 +0100
Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You "Andrew" <andrew.321remov@usa.net> - 2016-03-02 18:01 -0800
Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You nature bats last <seqklogw@gmail.com> - 2016-03-02 19:00 -0800
Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Malte Runz <noyouare@notgetting.it> - 2016-03-03 04:01 +0100
Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You "Andrew" <andrew.321remov@usa.net> - 2016-03-03 06:17 -0800
Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Malte Runz <noyouare@notgetting.it> - 2016-03-03 22:04 +0100
Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You nature bats last <seqklogw@gmail.com> - 2016-03-02 18:56 -0800
Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Malte Runz <noyouare@notgetting.it> - 2016-03-03 13:35 +0100
Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-03-03 01:21 +0000
Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Malte Runz <noyouare@notgetting.it> - 2016-03-03 03:35 +0100
Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Don Martin <drdonmartin@comcast.net> - 2016-03-03 18:57 -0500
Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You nature bats last <seqklogw@gmail.com> - 2016-03-01 15:57 -0800
Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Cloud Hobbit <youngblood2949@gmail.com> - 2016-03-01 21:01 -0800
Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Malte Runz <noyouare@notgetting.it> - 2016-03-03 02:25 +0100
Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Davej <galt_57@hotmail.com> - 2016-02-28 08:02 -0800
Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You nature bats last <seqklogw@gmail.com> - 2016-02-28 08:20 -0800
Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You "Andrew" <andrew.321remov@usa.net> - 2016-02-29 02:59 -0800
Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You nature bats last <seqklogw@gmail.com> - 2016-02-29 06:45 -0800
Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You hypatiab7 <hypatiab7@comcast.net> - 2016-02-29 03:16 -0800
Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You nature bats last <seqklogw@gmail.com> - 2016-02-29 06:48 -0800
Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You "Andrew" <andrew.321remov@usa.net> - 2016-02-29 10:55 -0800
Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Greywolf <greywolftheatheist@gmail.com> - 2016-02-29 11:06 -0800
Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You nature bats last <seqklogw@gmail.com> - 2016-02-29 11:16 -0800
Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-03-01 00:23 +0000
Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You nature bats last <seqklogw@gmail.com> - 2016-02-29 11:25 -0800
Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You nature bats last <seqklogw@gmail.com> - 2016-02-29 11:36 -0800
Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Marvin Sebourn <osugeography@aol.com> - 2016-02-29 13:54 -0800
Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You "Andrew" <andrew.321remov@usa.net> - 2016-02-29 23:30 -0800
Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Cloud Hobbit <youngblood2949@gmail.com> - 2016-03-01 00:16 -0800
Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You "Andrew" <andrew.321remov@usa.net> - 2016-03-01 06:10 -0800
Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You nature bats last <seqklogw@gmail.com> - 2016-03-01 06:39 -0800
Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-03-01 21:09 +0000
Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Greywolf <greywolftheatheist@gmail.com> - 2016-03-01 12:46 -0800
Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Cloud Hobbit <youngblood2949@gmail.com> - 2016-03-01 20:37 -0800
Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Mitchell Holman <noemail@verizon.net> - 2016-03-01 07:41 -0600
Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You "Andrew" <andrew.321remov@usa.net> - 2016-03-01 06:08 -0800
Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Mitchell Holman <noemail@verizon.net> - 2016-03-01 08:25 -0600
Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You nature bats last <seqklogw@gmail.com> - 2016-03-01 06:45 -0800
Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You "Andrew" <andrew.321remov@usa.net> - 2016-03-01 07:37 -0800
Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You nature bats last <seqklogw@gmail.com> - 2016-03-01 07:45 -0800
Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-03-01 10:13 -0600
Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Don Martin <drdonmartin@comcast.net> - 2016-03-01 17:52 -0500
Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-03-03 01:37 +0000
Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Don Martin <drdonmartin@comcast.net> - 2016-03-02 21:10 -0500
Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-03-03 01:25 -0600
Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Malte Runz <noyouare@notgetting.it> - 2016-03-02 00:43 +0100
Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-03-01 18:04 -0600
Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You nature bats last <seqklogw@gmail.com> - 2016-03-01 16:14 -0800
Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> - 2016-03-01 20:16 -0800
Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You "Andrew" <andrew.321remov@usa.net> - 2016-03-01 07:21 -0800
Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You nature bats last <seqklogw@gmail.com> - 2016-03-01 06:30 -0800
Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You "Andrew" <andrew.321remov@usa.net> - 2016-03-01 07:26 -0800
Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You nature bats last <seqklogw@gmail.com> - 2016-03-01 07:34 -0800
Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You "Andrew" <andrew.321remov@usa.net> - 2016-03-01 08:12 -0800
Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Malte Runz <noyouare@notgetting.it> - 2016-03-02 01:08 +0100
Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You nature bats last <seqklogw@gmail.com> - 2016-03-01 16:21 -0800
Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Cloud Hobbit <youngblood2949@gmail.com> - 2016-03-01 20:53 -0800
Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Malte Runz <noyouare@notgetting.it> - 2016-03-02 00:35 +0100
Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Cloud Hobbit <youngblood2949@gmail.com> - 2016-03-01 20:35 -0800
Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You "Andrew" <andrew.321remov@usa.net> - 2016-03-02 01:00 -0800
Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Mitchell Holman <noemail@verizon.net> - 2016-03-02 07:22 -0600
Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-03-02 08:05 -0600
Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You "Andrew" <andrew.321remov@usa.net> - 2016-03-02 10:59 -0800
Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Mitchell Holman <noemail@verizon.net> - 2016-03-02 13:11 -0600
Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-03-02 13:17 -0600
Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You nature bats last <seqklogw@gmail.com> - 2016-03-02 12:53 -0800
Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You nature bats last <seqklogw@gmail.com> - 2016-03-02 13:21 -0800
Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-03-02 15:30 -0600
Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You nature bats last <seqklogw@gmail.com> - 2016-03-02 13:48 -0800
Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-03-02 16:11 -0600
Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You nature bats last <seqklogw@gmail.com> - 2016-03-01 06:27 -0800
Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Greywolf <greywolftheatheist@gmail.com> - 2016-03-01 06:46 -0800
Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You "Andrew" <andrew.321remov@usa.net> - 2016-03-01 07:23 -0800
Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Malte Runz <noyouare@notgetting.it> - 2016-03-02 01:29 +0100
Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Marvin Sebourn <osugeography@aol.com> - 2016-03-01 10:08 -0800
Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Marvin Sebourn <osugeography@aol.com> - 2016-03-01 10:33 -0800
Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Malte Runz <noyouare@notgetting.it> - 2016-03-01 23:40 +0100
Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-03-01 16:42 -0600
Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You nature bats last <seqklogw@gmail.com> - 2016-03-01 16:10 -0800
Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Mitchell Holman <noemail@verizon.net> - 2016-02-29 15:56 -0600
Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Malte Runz <noyouare@notgetting.it> - 2016-03-01 22:43 +0100
Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-03-01 16:21 -0600
Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Malte Runz <noyouare@notgetting.it> - 2016-03-02 00:19 +0100
Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You nature bats last <seqklogw@gmail.com> - 2016-03-01 16:02 -0800
Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You hypatiab7 <hypatiab7@comcast.net> - 2016-03-01 23:47 -0800
Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You "Andrew" <andrew.321remov@usa.net> - 2016-03-02 00:59 -0800
Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You hypatiab7 <hypatiab7@comcast.net> - 2016-03-02 04:06 -0800
Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You nature bats last <seqklogw@gmail.com> - 2016-03-02 07:14 -0800
Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-03-02 10:17 -0600
Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You hypatiab7 <hypatiab7@comcast.net> - 2016-03-03 06:00 -0800
Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You "Andrew" <andrew.321remov@usa.net> - 2016-03-03 13:55 -0800
Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You "Andrew" <andrew.321remov@usa.net> - 2016-03-03 13:54 -0800
Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Mitchell Holman <noemail@verizon.net> - 2016-03-02 07:33 -0600
Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You nature bats last <seqklogw@gmail.com> - 2016-03-02 06:56 -0800
Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You hypatiab7 <hypatiab7@comcast.net> - 2016-03-03 05:47 -0800
Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Cloud Hobbit <youngblood2949@gmail.com> - 2016-02-29 14:17 -0800
Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Moses <moses@sinai.five> - 2016-03-01 10:58 -0500
Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You nature bats last <seqklogw@gmail.com> - 2016-03-01 11:56 -0800
Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-03-01 21:17 +0000
Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Moses <moses@sinai.> - 2016-03-01 16:22 -0500
Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-03-01 16:34 -0600
Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Moses <moses@sinai.5> - 2016-03-01 17:44 -0500
Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-03-01 17:26 -0600
Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Moses <moses@sinai.6> - 2016-03-01 18:34 -0500
Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-03-01 18:11 -0600
Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Moses <moses@sinai.7> - 2016-03-01 19:15 -0500
Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-03-01 19:37 -0600
Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Malte Runz <noyouare@notgetting.it> - 2016-03-02 01:57 +0100
Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Moses <moses@7sinai.74> - 2016-03-01 20:07 -0500
Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-03-01 19:31 -0600
Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Moses <moses@7sinai.74> - 2016-03-01 21:06 -0500
Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Moses <moses@7sinai.74> - 2016-03-01 21:39 -0500
Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You nature bats last <seqklogw@gmail.com> - 2016-03-01 18:55 -0800
Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-03-01 21:54 -0600
Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Don Martin <drdonmartin@comcast.net> - 2016-03-02 17:45 -0500
Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Don Martin <drdonmartin@comcast.net> - 2016-03-02 17:45 -0500
Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-03-04 00:38 +0000
Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-03-04 00:37 +0000
Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Malte Runz <noyouare@notgetting.it> - 2016-03-03 03:20 +0100
Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Don Martin <drdonmartin@comcast.net> - 2016-03-01 21:12 -0500
Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Malte Runz <noyouare@notgetting.it> - 2016-03-03 03:27 +0100
Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Don Martin <drdonmartin@comcast.net> - 2016-03-03 18:57 -0500
Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-03-04 00:46 +0000
Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Don Martin <drdonmartin@comcast.net> - 2016-03-01 21:12 -0500
Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> - 2016-03-01 20:33 -0800
Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Moses <moses@7sinai.74> - 2016-03-02 00:09 -0500
Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Olrik <olrik666@gmail.com> - 2016-03-02 01:27 -0500
Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Moses <moses@7sinai.74> - 2016-03-02 07:10 -0500
Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Moses <moses@7sinai.74> - 2016-03-02 07:29 -0500
Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> - 2016-03-02 04:42 -0800
Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-03-03 02:03 +0000
Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-03-02 08:28 -0600
Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> - 2016-03-02 04:41 -0800
Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-03-03 02:06 +0000
Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> - 2016-03-02 23:37 -0800
Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Gordon <gordonlr@swbell.net> - 2016-03-02 07:37 -0600
Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Moses <moses@7sinai.74> - 2016-03-02 09:03 -0500
Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Gordon <gordonlr@swbell.net> - 2016-03-02 09:24 -0600
Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Moses <moses@7sinai.74> - 2016-03-02 10:50 -0500
Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Moses <moses@7sinai.74> - 2016-03-02 11:23 -0500
Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Moses <moses@7sinai.74> - 2016-03-02 12:14 -0500
Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-03-02 11:38 -0600
Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Tim <cyfur12345@gmail.com> - 2016-03-02 09:46 -0800
Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You hypatiab7 <hypatiab7@comcast.net> - 2016-03-03 06:10 -0800
Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You "Andrew" <andrew.321remov@usa.net> - 2016-03-03 13:54 -0800
Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-03-04 00:52 +0000
Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You "%" <persent@gmail.com> - 2016-03-03 18:06 -0700
Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You nature bats last <seqklogw@gmail.com> - 2016-03-02 07:18 -0800
Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You nature bats last <seqklogw@gmail.com> - 2016-03-02 07:58 -0800
Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Malte Runz <noyouare@notgetting.it> - 2016-03-03 14:29 +0100
Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-03-03 08:38 -0600
Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You nature bats last <seqklogw@gmail.com> - 2016-03-03 09:42 -0800
Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-03-02 10:19 -0600
Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Don Martin <drdonmartin@comcast.net> - 2016-03-02 17:45 -0500
Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> - 2016-03-02 16:12 -0800
Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Malte Runz <noyouare@notgetting.it> - 2016-03-03 14:36 +0100
Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-03-02 08:20 -0600
Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-03-02 08:20 -0600
Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> - 2016-03-02 02:48 -0800
Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Moses <moses@7sinai.74> - 2016-03-02 06:05 -0500
Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> - 2016-03-02 04:39 -0800
Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> - 2016-03-02 04:39 -0800
Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-03-02 08:37 -0600
Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-03-02 08:32 -0600
Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You hypatiab7 <hypatiab7@comcast.net> - 2016-03-03 05:54 -0800
Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-03-02 08:13 -0600
Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You nature bats last <seqklogw@gmail.com> - 2016-03-02 06:50 -0800
Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Malte Runz <noyouare@notgetting.it> - 2016-03-03 13:54 +0100
Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-03-04 00:56 +0000
Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You "%" <persent@gmail.com> - 2016-03-03 18:07 -0700
Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Cloud Hobbit <youngblood2949@gmail.com> - 2016-03-01 20:42 -0800
Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Andy W <chordack@gmail.com> - 2016-03-02 15:44 -0800
Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You nature bats last <seqklogw@gmail.com> - 2016-03-02 15:54 -0800
Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You "Andrew" <andrew.321remov@usa.net> - 2016-03-03 13:52 -0800
Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Andy W <chordack@gmail.com> - 2016-03-03 14:28 -0800
Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Mitchell Holman <noemail@verizon.net> - 2016-03-04 07:22 -0600
Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You mr.hvac@gmail.com - 2016-03-04 05:58 -0800
Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You nature bats last <seqklogw@gmail.com> - 2016-03-04 07:57 -0800
Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Joe Bruno <ajtandy114@gmail.com> - 2016-03-04 12:35 -0800
Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Joe Bruno <ajtandy114@gmail.com> - 2016-03-04 12:37 -0800
Page 8 of 12 — ← Prev page 1 … 6 7 [8] 9 10 … 12 Next page →
| From | hypatiab7 <hypatiab7@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-01 23:47 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <54e39ad8-5c30-48f9-8dd0-37d9a0412297@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #2067863 |
On Monday, February 29, 2016 at 1:55:04 PM UTC-5, Andrew wrote: > "nature bats last" wrote in message news:506700f5-55ba-40cf-a2b5-d760ee3abbd0@googlegroups.com... > > > Andrew's not exactly a skeptic when it comes to woo woo. > > He believes in mediums, demons, and, I have gotten the > > impression, food woo woo as well (though I may be wrong > > about that last one) > > > > Seth > > I believe in the awesome Creator, the wonderful God who > made heaven and earth with the life therein, as all evidence > points to this model of origins. Yes, Andyroo, we know that you believe in lots of woo woo. > > Whereas you believe in fantasized models of origin where > the entire Universe *created itself* including all of the life > that is in it. Not fantasized - proven by science. The Universe isn't a self-aware godlet, like the make pretend critter you believe in. Our Universe developed from the Big Bang and since then from exploding stars. I know there's a lot more to it, but I'm putting in the simplest terms possible, so you'll, hopefully, understand. > > You believe in fantasy, contrary to both common sense as > well as the laws of science. And you fail to realize that you > are in a state of denial and deception.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Andrew" <andrew.321remov@usa.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-02 00:59 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <k6SdnREGiM3gNkvLnZ2dnUU7-U3NnZ2d@earthlink.com> |
| In reply to | #2068695 |
"hypatiab7" wrote in message news:54e39ad8-5c30-48f9-8dd0-37d9a0412297@googlegroups.com... > Andrew wrote: >> "nature bats last" wrote: >> >> > Andrew's not exactly a skeptic when it comes to woo woo. >> > He believes in mediums, demons, and, I have gotten the >> > impression, food woo woo as well (though I may be wrong >> > about that last one) >> > >> > Seth >> >> I believe in the awesome Creator, the wonderful God who >> made heaven and earth with the life therein, as all evidence >> points to this model of origins. > > Yes, Andyroo, we know that you believe in lots of woo woo. Baby talk. Are you going to have a baby! >> Whereas you believe in fantasized models of origin where >> the entire Universe *created itself* including all of the life >> that is in it. > > Not fantasized - proven by science. Are you not the one who has, or had an obsession with science fiction? Yes, it was on your website. > The Universe isn't a self-aware godlet, > like the make pretend critter you believe in. Our > Universe developed from the Big Bang and since > then from exploding stars. And you're trying to tell me this is not fantasy? Lol!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | hypatiab7 <hypatiab7@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-02 04:06 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <8b98bf1e-7098-48ae-bfde-adb6b6a69ea5@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #2068715 |
On Wednesday, March 2, 2016 at 3:59:42 AM UTC-5, Andrew wrote: > "hypatiab7" wrote in message news:54e39ad8-5c30-48f9-8dd0-37d9a0412297@googlegroups.com... > > Andrew wrote: > >> "nature bats last" wrote: > >> > >> > Andrew's not exactly a skeptic when it comes to woo woo. > >> > He believes in mediums, demons, and, I have gotten the > >> > impression, food woo woo as well (though I may be wrong > >> > about that last one) > >> > > >> > Seth > >> > >> I believe in the awesome Creator, the wonderful God who > >> made heaven and earth with the life therein, as all evidence > >> points to this model of origins. > > > > Yes, Andyroo, we know that you believe in lots of woo woo. > > Baby talk. Are you going to have a baby! > > >> Whereas you believe in fantasized models of origin where > >> the entire Universe *created itself* including all of the life > >> that is in it. > > > > Not fantasized - proven by science. > > Are you not the one who has, or had an obsession > with science fiction? Yes, it was on your website. Do you always call a hobby an obsession? I guess you never had a hobby or avocation (look it up). I was a fan writer and fan publisher. > > > The Universe isn't a self-aware godlet, > > like the make pretend critter you believe in. Our > > Universe developed from the Big Bang and since > > then from exploding stars. > > And you're trying to tell me this is not fantasy? No, I'm trying to tell you that religion is fantasy. The Big Bang is science. > > Lol! It won't be funny when you die and don't go anywhere except into a hole in the ground (unless you're nice enough to donate your body to medical science).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nature bats last <seqklogw@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-02 07:14 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <2043b1e5-9257-4882-9057-850a8854aaac@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #2068738 |
On Wednesday, March 2, 2016 at 5:06:37 AM UTC-7, hypatiab7 wrote: > On Wednesday, March 2, 2016 at 3:59:42 AM UTC-5, Andrew wrote: > > "hypatiab7" wrote in message news:54e39ad8-5c30-48f9-8dd0-37d9a0412297@googlegroups.com... > > > Andrew wrote: > > >> "nature bats last" wrote: > > >> > > >> > Andrew's not exactly a skeptic when it comes to woo woo. > > >> > He believes in mediums, demons, and, I have gotten the > > >> > impression, food woo woo as well (though I may be wrong > > >> > about that last one) > > >> > > > >> > Seth > > >> > > >> I believe in the awesome Creator, the wonderful God who > > >> made heaven and earth with the life therein, as all evidence > > >> points to this model of origins. > > > > > > Yes, Andyroo, we know that you believe in lots of woo woo. > > > > Baby talk. Are you going to have a baby! > > > > >> Whereas you believe in fantasized models of origin where > > >> the entire Universe *created itself* including all of the life > > >> that is in it. > > > > > > Not fantasized - proven by science. > > > > Are you not the one who has, or had an obsession > > with science fiction? Yes, it was on your website. > > Do you always call a hobby an obsession? I guess you never had a hobby > or avocation (look it up). I was a fan writer and fan publisher. > > > > > The Universe isn't a self-aware godlet, > > > like the make pretend critter you believe in. Our > > > Universe developed from the Big Bang and since > > > then from exploding stars. > > > > And you're trying to tell me this is not fantasy? > > No, I'm trying to tell you that religion is fantasy. > The Big Bang is science. > > > > .> > Lol! > .> It won't be funny when you die and don't go anywhere except into a .> hole in the ground (unless you're nice enough to donate your body .> to medical science). Which I intend to do. But I suspect you have hit on why Andrew clings so fiercely to his beliefs in the absolute and literal accuracy of the myths in Genesis. To his way of thinking, if they are not utterly true, then that begins a disastrous chain which starts with "No Adam", and ends with "No redemption, no eternal life". Is it any wonder he's so adamant about this?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-02 10:17 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <jv3edbl60uv11uqqfp7b2ef0htr9vfjll3@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #2068801 |
On Wed, 2 Mar 2016 07:14:01 -0800 (PST), nature bats last <seqklogw@gmail.com> wrote: >On Wednesday, March 2, 2016 at 5:06:37 AM UTC-7, hypatiab7 wrote: >> On Wednesday, March 2, 2016 at 3:59:42 AM UTC-5, Andrew wrote: >> > "hypatiab7" wrote in message news:54e39ad8-5c30-48f9-8dd0-37d9a0412297@googlegroups.com... >> > > Andrew wrote: >> > >> "nature bats last" wrote: >> > >> >> > >> > Andrew's not exactly a skeptic when it comes to woo woo. >> > >> > He believes in mediums, demons, and, I have gotten the >> > >> > impression, food woo woo as well (though I may be wrong >> > >> > about that last one) >> > >> > >> > >> > Seth >> > >> >> > >> I believe in the awesome Creator, the wonderful God who >> > >> made heaven and earth with the life therein, as all evidence >> > >> points to this model of origins. >> > > >> > > Yes, Andyroo, we know that you believe in lots of woo woo. >> > >> > Baby talk. Are you going to have a baby! >> > >> > >> Whereas you believe in fantasized models of origin where >> > >> the entire Universe *created itself* including all of the life >> > >> that is in it. >> > > >> > > Not fantasized - proven by science. >> > >> > Are you not the one who has, or had an obsession >> > with science fiction? Yes, it was on your website. >> >> Do you always call a hobby an obsession? I guess you never had a hobby >> or avocation (look it up). I was a fan writer and fan publisher. >> > >> > > The Universe isn't a self-aware godlet, >> > > like the make pretend critter you believe in. Our >> > > Universe developed from the Big Bang and since >> > > then from exploding stars. >> > >> > And you're trying to tell me this is not fantasy? >> >> No, I'm trying to tell you that religion is fantasy. >> The Big Bang is science. >> >> >> > > >.> > Lol! >> >.> It won't be funny when you die and don't go anywhere except into a >.> hole in the ground (unless you're nice enough to donate your body >.> to medical science). > >Which I intend to do. > >But I suspect you have hit on why Andrew clings so >fiercely to his beliefs in the absolute and literal >accuracy of the myths in Genesis. To his way of thinking, >if they are not utterly true, then that begins >a disastrous chain which starts with "No Adam", >and ends with "No redemption, no eternal life". >Is it any wonder he's so adamant about this? But if he had a measurable IQ, he would understand why people don't believe in Genesis creation, global floods, virgin births, resurrection a few days into a corpse's starting to smell, etc, Even though he believes them, himself. It takes a combination of narcissism and lack of self-awareness,
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | hypatiab7 <hypatiab7@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-03 06:00 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <d2c17039-031c-4168-a00f-62dd730da5ae@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #2068801 |
On Wednesday, March 2, 2016 at 10:14:04 AM UTC-5, nature bats last wrote: > On Wednesday, March 2, 2016 at 5:06:37 AM UTC-7, hypatiab7 wrote: > > On Wednesday, March 2, 2016 at 3:59:42 AM UTC-5, Andrew wrote: > > > "hypatiab7" wrote in message news:54e39ad8-5c30-48f9-8dd0-37d9a0412297@googlegroups.com... > > > > Andrew wrote: > > > >> "nature bats last" wrote: > > > >> > > > >> > Andrew's not exactly a skeptic when it comes to woo woo. > > > >> > He believes in mediums, demons, and, I have gotten the > > > >> > impression, food woo woo as well (though I may be wrong > > > >> > about that last one) > > > >> > > > > >> > Seth > > > >> > > > >> I believe in the awesome Creator, the wonderful God who > > > >> made heaven and earth with the life therein, as all evidence > > > >> points to this model of origins. > > > > > > > > Yes, Andyroo, we know that you believe in lots of woo woo. > > > > > > Baby talk. Are you going to have a baby! > > > > > > >> Whereas you believe in fantasized models of origin where > > > >> the entire Universe *created itself* including all of the life > > > >> that is in it. > > > > > > > > Not fantasized - proven by science. > > > > > > Are you not the one who has, or had an obsession > > > with science fiction? Yes, it was on your website. > > > > Do you always call a hobby an obsession? I guess you never had a hobby > > or avocation (look it up). I was a fan writer and fan publisher. > > > > > > > The Universe isn't a self-aware godlet, > > > > like the make pretend critter you believe in. Our > > > > Universe developed from the Big Bang and since > > > > then from exploding stars. > > > > > > And you're trying to tell me this is not fantasy? > > > > No, I'm trying to tell you that religion is fantasy. > > The Big Bang is science. > > > > > > > > > .> > Lol! > > > .> It won't be funny when you die and don't go anywhere except into a > .> hole in the ground (unless you're nice enough to donate your body > .> to medical science). > > Which I intend to do. > > But I suspect you have hit on why Andrew clings so > fiercely to his beliefs in the absolute and literal > accuracy of the myths in Genesis. To his way of thinking, > if they are not utterly true, then that begins > a disastrous chain which starts with "No Adam", > and ends with "No redemption, no eternal life". > Is it any wonder he's so adamant about this? I figure that's what all our theist trolls are afraid of. The idea of going to sleep and never waking up terrifies them. So does the idea of going to their hell, though their heaven sounds even worse.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Andrew" <andrew.321remov@usa.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-03 13:55 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <9JCdnZUvwrBOL0XLnZ2dnUU7-YPNnZ2d@earthlink.com> |
| In reply to | #2069295 |
"hypatiab7" wrote in message news:d2c17039-031c-4168-a00f-62dd730da5ae@googlegroups.com...
> On Wednesday, March 2, 2016 at 10:14:04 AM UTC-5, nature bats last wrote:
>> On Wednesday, March 2, 2016 at 5:06:37 AM UTC-7, hypatiab7 wrote:
>> > On Wednesday, March 2, 2016 at 3:59:42 AM UTC-5, Andrew wrote:
>> > > "hypatiab7" wrote:
>> > > > Andrew wrote:
>> > > >> "nature bats last" wrote:
>> > > >>
>> > > >> > Andrew's not exactly a skeptic when it comes to woo woo.
>> > > >> > He believes in mediums, demons, and, I have gotten the
>> > > >> > impression, food woo woo as well (though I may be wrong
>> > > >> > about that last one)
>> > > >> >
>> > > >> > Seth
>> > > >>
>> > > >> I believe in the awesome Creator, the wonderful God who
>> > > >> made heaven and earth with the life therein, as all evidence
>> > > >> points to this model of origins.
>> > > >
>> > > > Yes, Andyroo, we know that you believe in lots of woo woo.
>> > >
>> > > Baby talk. Are you going to have a baby!
>> > >
>> > > >> Whereas you believe in fantasized models of origin where
>> > > >> the entire Universe *created itself* including all of the life
>> > > >> that is in it.
>> > > >
>> > > > Not fantasized - proven by science.
>> > >
>> > > Are you not the one who has, or had an obsession
>> > > with science fiction? Yes, it was on your website.
>> >
>> > Do you always call a hobby an obsession? I guess you never had a hobby
>> > or avocation (look it up). I was a fan writer and fan publisher.
>> > >
>> > > > The Universe isn't a self-aware godlet,
>> > > > like the make pretend critter you believe in. Our
>> > > > Universe developed from the Big Bang and since
>> > > > then from exploding stars.
>> > >
>> > > And you're trying to tell me this is not fantasy?
>> >
>> > No, I'm trying to tell you that religion is fantasy.
>> > The Big Bang is science.
>>
>> .> > Lol!
>> >
>> .> It won't be funny when you die and don't go anywhere except into a
>> .> hole in the ground (unless you're nice enough to donate your body
>> .> to medical science).
>>
>> Which I intend to do.
>>
>> But I suspect you have hit on why Andrew clings so
>> fiercely to his beliefs in the absolute and literal
>> accuracy of the myths in Genesis. To his way of thinking,
>> if they are not utterly true, then that begins
>> a disastrous chain which starts with "No Adam",
>> and ends with "No redemption, no eternal life".
>> Is it any wonder he's so adamant about this?
>
> I figure that's what all our theist trolls are afraid of.
> The idea of going to sleep and never waking up terrifies them.
> So does the idea of going to their hell, though their heaven
> sounds even worse.
This is what will happen.
"In keeping with his promise we are looking
forward to a new heaven and a new earth,
where righteousness dwells." 2 Peter 3
"And I saw a new heaven and a new earth:
for the first heaven and the first earth were
passed away." Rev 21:1
"For, behold, I create new heavens and a
new earth: and the former shall not be
remembered, nor come into mind."
Isaiah 65:17
"The wolf and the lamb shall feed together,
the lion shall eat straw like the ox, and dust
shall be the serpent's food. They shall not
hurt nor destroy in all My holy mountain,"
says the Lord." Isaiah 65:25
You may have life in this future kingdom,
if you will.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Andrew" <andrew.321remov@usa.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-03 13:54 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <SumdnQalKOMZL0XLnZ2dnUU7-KnNnZ2d@earthlink.com> |
| In reply to | #2068738 |
"hypatiab7" wrote in message news:8b98bf1e-7098-48ae-bfde-adb6b6a69ea5@googlegroups.com... > Andrew wrote: >> "hypatiab7" wrote: >> > Andrew wrote: >> >> "nature bats last" wrote: >> >> >> >> > Andrew's not exactly a skeptic when it comes to woo woo. >> >> > He believes in mediums, demons, and, I have gotten the >> >> > impression, food woo woo as well (though I may be wrong >> >> > about that last one) >> >> > >> >> > Seth >> >> >> >> I believe in the awesome Creator, the wonderful God who >> >> made heaven and earth with the life therein, as all evidence >> >> points to this model of origins. >> > >> > Yes, Andyroo, we know that you believe in lots of woo woo. >> >> Baby talk. Are you going to have a baby! >> >> >> Whereas you believe in fantasized models of origin where >> >> the entire Universe *created itself* including all of the life >> >> that is in it. >> > >> > Not fantasized - proven by science. >> >> Are you not the one who has, or had an obsession >> with science fiction? Yes, it was on your website. > > Do you always call a hobby an obsession? It can turn into that. > I guess you never had a hobby > or avocation (look it up). I was a fan writer and fan publisher. What genre? >> > The Universe isn't a self-aware godlet, >> > like the make pretend critter you believe in. Our >> > Universe developed from the Big Bang and since >> > then from exploding stars. >> >> And you're trying to tell me this is not fantasy? > > No, I'm trying to tell you that religion is fantasy. True that some is, but that doesn't mean there is no Creator. > The Big Bang is science. It is a disputed hypothesis. But you think it is the truth, right? Thus you acknowledge your deception. And what's this about "exploding stars"? You think all matter come from that? But where did they come from? You are descending deeper into the realm of fantasy and you fail to realize it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mitchell Holman <noemail@verizon.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-02 07:33 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <XnsA5BF4CCE86F38noemailattnet@216.166.97.131> |
| In reply to | #2068715 |
"Andrew" <andrew.321remov@usa.net> wrote in
news:k6SdnREGiM3gNkvLnZ2dnUU7-U3NnZ2d@earthlink.com:
> "hypatiab7" wrote in message
> news:54e39ad8-5c30-48f9-8dd0-37d9a0412297@googlegroups.com...
>> Andrew wrote:
>>> "nature bats last" wrote:
>>>
>>> > Andrew's not exactly a skeptic when it comes to woo woo.
>>> > He believes in mediums, demons, and, I have gotten the
>>> > impression, food woo woo as well (though I may be wrong
>>> > about that last one)
>>> >
>>> > Seth
>>>
>>> I believe in the awesome Creator, the wonderful God who
>>> made heaven and earth with the life therein, as all evidence
>>> points to this model of origins.
>>
>> Yes, Andyroo, we know that you believe in lots of woo woo.
>
> Baby talk. Are you going to have a baby!
>
>>> Whereas you believe in fantasized models of origin where
>>> the entire Universe *created itself* including all of the life
>>> that is in it.
>>
>> Not fantasized - proven by science.
>
> Are you not the one who has, or had an obsession
> with science fiction? Yes, it was on your website.
>
>> The Universe isn't a self-aware godlet,
>> like the make pretend critter you believe in. Our
>> Universe developed from the Big Bang and since
>> then from exploding stars.
>
> And you're trying to tell me this is not fantasy?
>
> Lol!
>
>
>
Modern Christian: Someone who believes
in dragons, unicorns, talking snakes and
transmutation (all mentioned in the Bible)
but accuses others of indulging in fantasies.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nature bats last <seqklogw@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-02 06:56 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <5ae20330-38cb-4296-94bc-98964aa38dbb@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #2068715 |
On Wednesday, March 2, 2016 at 1:59:42 AM UTC-7, Andrew wrote:
> "hypatiab7" wrote in message news:54e39ad8-5c30-48f9-8dd0-37d9a0412297@googlegroups.com...
> > Andrew wrote:
> >> "nature bats last" wrote:
> >>
> >> > Andrew's not exactly a skeptic when it comes to woo woo.
> >> > He believes in mediums, demons, and, I have gotten the
> >> > impression, food woo woo as well (though I may be wrong
> >> > about that last one)
> >> >
> >> > Seth
> >>
> >> I believe in the awesome Creator, the wonderful God who
> >> made heaven and earth with the life therein, as all evidence
> >> points to this model of origins.
> >
.> > Yes, Andyroo, we know that you believe in lots of woo woo.
>
.> Baby talk. Are you going to have a baby!
Really? The term is new to you? It shouldn't be, given
the degree to which you practice it. Talking here
about such woo-woo ideas as mediums and demons?
Here ya go:
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Woo-woo
>
> >> Whereas you believe in fantasized models of origin where
> >> the entire Universe *created itself* including all of the life
> >> that is in it.
> >
> > Not fantasized - proven by science.
>
> Are you not the one who has, or had an obsession
> with science fiction? Yes, it was on your website.
>
.> > The Universe isn't a self-aware godlet,
.> > like the make pretend critter you believe in. Our
.> > Universe developed from the Big Bang and since
.> > then from exploding stars.
>
.> And you're trying to tell me this is not fantasy?
And you're now going to tell us why you label that fantasy?
(of course not -- "fantasy" is your code word
for "I got nothing here")
Seth
>
> Lol!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | hypatiab7 <hypatiab7@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-03 05:47 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <3024ac93-5ed8-472c-8b14-dab92b6a3056@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #2068715 |
On Wednesday, March 2, 2016 at 3:59:42 AM UTC-5, Andrew wrote: > "hypatiab7" wrote in message news:54e39ad8-5c30-48f9-8dd0-37d9a0412297@googlegroups.com... > > Andrew wrote: > >> "nature bats last" wrote: > >> > >> > Andrew's not exactly a skeptic when it comes to woo woo. > >> > He believes in mediums, demons, and, I have gotten the > >> > impression, food woo woo as well (though I may be wrong > >> > about that last one) > >> > > >> > Seth > >> > >> I believe in the awesome Creator, the wonderful God who > >> made heaven and earth with the life therein, as all evidence > >> points to this model of origins. > > > > Yes, Andyroo, we know that you believe in lots of woo woo. > > Baby talk. Are you going to have a baby! It wasn't baby talk. It was talk down to your level. > > >> Whereas you believe in fantasized models of origin where > >> the entire Universe *created itself* including all of the life > >> that is in it. > > > > Not fantasized - proven by science. > > Are you not the one who has, or had an obsession > with science fiction? Yes, it was on your website. > > > The Universe isn't a self-aware godlet, > > like the make pretend critter you believe in. Our > > Universe developed from the Big Bang and since > > then from exploding stars. > I'm glad you checked out my website. Now, go back to it and actually go to some of the websites I give the links for. > And you're trying to tell me this is not fantasy? > > Lol!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Cloud Hobbit <youngblood2949@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-29 14:17 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <e98afd39-dd6b-41cd-8996-2bbf8cfc1125@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #2066624 |
On Friday, February 26, 2016 at 4:53:20 PM UTC-8, Andrew wrote: > This is exactly what you would expect to see > after a massive worldwide flood. > > http://www.stevequayle.com/index.php?s=290 > > Did it happen? > > Oh yes! No it didn't. It's impossible. You did not offer up any proof of anything. Typical.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Moses <moses@sinai.five> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-01 10:58 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <56D5BgfgerncvnhbfbdfhyjssvsdC3B.6Ebjtynnhghgnvb50@rrrttt.eeeehhhh> |
| In reply to | #2066624 |
Andrew wrote: > This is exactly what you would expect to see > after a massive worldwide flood. > Did it happen? > Oh yes! according to the Bereshith account, the flood was NOT a "natural disaster" and the only myth which should be debunked is the myth that the Bereshith account must be reconciled with a naturalistic mechanism. according to the Bereshith account God poured out waters and assuaged them, and this is not some natural catastophe upon which "God" merely sat and watched a thing that would have happened anyway without "God's" implementation. Bereshith 6:17 And, behold, I, even I, do bring a flood of waters upon the earth, <...> 8:1-3 And God remembered Noah, and every living thing, and all the cattle that was with him in the ark: and God made a wind to pass over the earth, and the waters asswaged; The fountains also of the deep and the windows of heaven were stopped, and the rain from heaven was restrained; And the waters returned from off the earth continually and after the end of the hundred and fifty days the waters were abated. there was plenty of genetic information carried on the ark as well. Noah and his wife and three sons, and three totally different son's wives and 7 pairs of many creatures which were culled from a diverse source and single pairs of some creatures. "Science" has not made the event disappear; even if it may not fully recognize how such an purposeful intereference happened or would look like.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nature bats last <seqklogw@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-01 11:56 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <c7cdcdf3-0777-4849-9014-f1a1994bece2@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #2068280 |
On Tuesday, March 1, 2016 at 9:10:25 AM UTC-7, Moses wrote: > Andrew wrote: > > > This is exactly what you would expect to see > > after a massive worldwide flood. > > > Did it happen? > > > Oh yes! > > according to the Bereshith account, the flood was NOT a "natural disaster" and the only myth > which should be debunked is the myth that the Bereshith account must be reconciled with a naturalistic mechanism. > according to the Bereshith account God poured out waters and assuaged them, and this is not some natural > catastophe upon which "God" merely sat and watched a thing that would have happened anyway without "God's" implementation. > > > > Bereshith 6:17 And, behold, I, even I, do bring a flood of waters upon the earth, > <...> > 8:1-3 > And God remembered Noah, and every living thing, and all the cattle that was with > him in the ark: and God made a wind to pass over the earth, and the waters asswaged; > The fountains also of the deep and the windows of heaven were stopped, and the rain > from heaven was restrained; And the waters returned from off the earth continually > and after the end of the hundred and fifty days the waters were abated. > > > .> there was plenty of genetic information carried on the ark as well. Noah and his wife > and three sons, and three totally different son's wives and 7 pairs of many creatures .> which were culled from a diverse source and single pairs of some creatures. And you've pretty much given us the definition of "genetic bottleneck" there. An extremely ominous one as far as the humans are concerned, and a positively disastrous one in animals for which there is only one mating pair left. Works beautifully when considered as a myth, utterly imaginary when considered from a geneticist's point of view. And only four thousand years ago to boot-- modern genomics could easily detect such a bottleneck, see it in every species that exists. Instead what we see is the riotous genetic diversity of, just to take one particularly vivid example, beetles. Seth > > > > "Science" has not made the event disappear; even if it may not fully recognize how such an purposeful intereference happened or would look like.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Smiler <smiler@jo.king> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-01 21:17 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nb50tp$1e9g$3@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #2068280 |
On Tue, 01 Mar 2016 10:58:51 -0500, Moses wrote: > Andrew wrote: > >> This is exactly what you would expect to see after a massive worldwide >> flood. > >> Did it happen? > >> Oh yes! > > according to the Bereshith account, the flood was NOT a "natural > disaster" and the only myth which should be debunked is the myth that > the Bereshith account must be reconciled with a naturalistic mechanism. > according to the Bereshith account God poured out waters and assuaged > them, and this is not some natural catastophe upon which "God" merely > sat and watched a thing that would have happened anyway without "God's" > implementation. That would be the supposed Noahic flood for which you have no evidence and the supposed god for which you also have no evidence. Beliefs, opinions and 'holy' books are NOT evidence. -- Smiler, The godless one. aa #2279 Gods are all tailored to order. They are made to exactly fit the prejudices of the believer.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Moses <moses@sinai.> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-01 16:22 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <56Djfjfjgkghghj082D.36Artjtjurfjfgjfg0@yjgjgjgh.tthturtjfj> |
| In reply to | #2068466 |
Smiler wrote: > Moses wrote: > > Andrew wrote: > >> This is exactly what you would expect to see after a massive worldwide flood. > >> Did it happen? Oh yes! > > according to the Bereshith account, the flood was NOT a "natural > > disaster" and the only myth which should be debunked is the myth that > > the Bereshith account must be reconciled with a naturalistic mechanism. > > according to the Bereshith account God poured out waters and assuaged > > them, and this is not some natural catastophe upon which "God" merely > > sat and watched a thing that would have happened anyway without "God's" > > implementation. > That would be the supposed Noahic flood for which you have no evidence and most 10th graders cannot go into a lab and study gravity waves or atom smashers. professors' handwaving gestures and textbooks are not evidence. I don't claim that a flood story is evidence of God, but there are physical evidences around the globe that look flood like, whether these can be shown to be localized or not is moot. > the supposed god for which you also have no evidence. i have evidence for God. both presumptive and personal you could have this evidence for yourself, but right now, you would be like a 10th grader who was told that there were gravity waves, and chose not to believe in them because they had not done the experiment for themselves and therefore, did not have the actual experience of the thing for themselves, and rightly, would not take someone else's word for a thing they had not experienced for themself. One can draw a positive conclusion regarding the existence of a God from the naturally observable phenomena that is available to everyone. > Beliefs, opinions and 'holy' books are NOT evidence. A positive conclusion regarding the existence of God is not, itself, an actual experience of God, but such an actual experience can be had. the God i know has been trustworthy to me, and i believe this God. starting from this perspective, i find the flood story credible. would you like to meet God?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-01 16:34 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <4f5cdbdfi40cv04t5okotrb873lhspel4e@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #2068501 |
On Tue, 01 Mar 2016 16:22:53 -0500, Moses <moses@sinai.> wrote: >Smiler wrote: > >> Moses wrote: > >> > Andrew wrote: > >> >> This is exactly what you would expect to see after a massive worldwide flood. > >> >> Did it happen? Oh yes! > >> > according to the Bereshith account, the flood was NOT a "natural >> > disaster" and the only myth which should be debunked is the myth that >> > the Bereshith account must be reconciled with a naturalistic mechanism. >> > according to the Bereshith account God poured out waters and assuaged >> > them, and this is not some natural catastophe upon which "God" merely >> > sat and watched a thing that would have happened anyway without "God's" >> > implementation. WHAT FUCKING GOD? >> That would be the supposed Noahic flood for which you have no >> evidence and > >most 10th graders cannot go into a lab and study gravity waves >or atom smashers. professors' handwaving gestures and textbooks >are not evidence. WHAT FUCKING "HANDWAVING GESTURES" ARE YOU LYING ABOUT? >I don't claim that a flood story is evidence of God, OF WHAT FUCKING GOD? > but there are >physical evidences around the globe that look flood like, It was a physical impossibility, imbecile. >whether these can be shown to be localized or not is moot. No, moron. >> the supposed god for which you also have no evidence. > >i have evidence for God. both presumptive and personal Then provide it or stop lying. >you could have this evidence for yourself, Liar. > but right now, you >would be like a 10th grader who was told that there were >gravity waves, Liar. > and chose not to believe in them because they >had not done the experiment for themselves and therefore, >did not have the actual experience of the thing for themselves, >and rightly, would not take someone else's word for a thing >they had not experienced for themself. One can draw a positive Provide as much evidence for your hypothetical god as there is for gravity waves, pathological liar. >conclusion regarding the existence of a God WHAT EXISTENCE OF WHAT FUCKING GOD, IN THE REAL WORLD OUTSIDE YOUR RELIGION, IMBECILE. >from the naturally observable phenomena that is available to everyone. Show how any of these naturally occurring lead one to conclude your hypothetical god. You know perfectly well that the only reason you believe in it, is because it is part of the religion into which you were raised. >> Beliefs, opinions and 'holy' books are NOT evidence. > >A positive conclusion regarding the existence of God OF WHAT FUCKING GOD, question-begging moron who hasn't given a reason even to postulate it? > is not, itself, an >actual experience of God, OF WHAT FUCKING GOD, question-begging moron who hasn't given a reason even to postulate it? >but such an actual experience can be had. Idiot. >the God WHAT FUCKING GOD, question-begging moron who hasn't given a reason even to postulate it? > i know has been trustworthy to me, No, moron. That's just your religious belief. > and i believe this God. WHAT FUCKING GOD, question-begging moron who hasn't given a reason even to postulate it? >starting from this perspective, First mistake. You should have stepped aside from your religious beliefs and learned how to conclude this physically impossible flood from actual, real world facts. > i find the flood story credible. Then you're a pig-ignorant, stupid, brainwashed moron without even a proper high-school level of education. >would you like to meet God? WHAT FUCKING GOD. imbecile? What kind of mindless stupidity does it take to ask such a ridiculous question of people you know are part of the world beyond your religion?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Moses <moses@sinai.5> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-01 17:44 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <56D61jrtjjsrhhsththB33.609A@mmtymhmgmmrtyy.hrth6u56jfgnyjtyjff> |
| In reply to | #2068516 |
> >> >> This is exactly what you would expect to see after a massive worldwide flood. > >> >> Did it happen? Oh yes! > >> > according to the Bereshith account, the flood was NOT a "natural > >> > disaster" and the only myth which should be debunked is the myth that > >> > the Bereshith account must be reconciled with a naturalistic mechanism. > >> > according to the Bereshith account God poured out waters and assuaged > >> > them, and this is not some natural catastophe upon which "God" merely > >> > sat and watched a thing that would have happened anyway without "God's" > >> > implementation. > It [flood] was a physical impossibility. this speaks of an interference from some outside agency, and not a physical phenomenon that would have happened anyway if the outside agency had not taken action. calling it a "physical impossibilty" misses that point. Clearly, a God who can create physical universes from scratch can easily cover the surface of the earth with water. The Bereshith account, does not describe a "natural disaster" and the only myth which should be debunked is the straw man that the Bereshith account must be reconciled with a naturalistic mechanism.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-01 17:26 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <s19cdb1vcm0foi8c9tu7oh0868nvrq1dgt@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #2068531 |
On Tue, 01 Mar 2016 17:44:03 -0500, Moses <moses@sinai.5> wrote: > >> >> >> This is exactly what you would expect to see after a massive worldwide flood. > >> >> >> Did it happen? Oh yes! > >> >> > according to the Bereshith account, the flood was NOT a "natural >> >> > disaster" and the only myth which should be debunked is the myth that >> >> > the Bereshith account must be reconciled with a naturalistic mechanism. >> >> > according to the Bereshith account God poured out waters and assuaged >> >> > them, and this is not some natural catastophe upon which "God" merely >> >> > sat and watched a thing that would have happened anyway without "God's" >> >> > implementation. > >> It [flood] was a physical impossibility. > >this speaks of an interference from some outside agency, Idiot. It says it never happened. As do all the other problems with it . Were the Chinese, Egyptian and South American civilisations lying when they didn't notice they were all drowned under all that water? > and not a >physical phenomenon that would have happened anyway if the outside >agency had not taken action. calling it a "physical impossibilty" misses >that point. No. moron - it's clearly a re-hash of earlier Babylonian and Sumerian legends. As it the rest of GEnesis. > Clearly, a God who can create physical universes from >scratch can easily cover the surface of the earth with water. A completely unevidenced god which there is no reason even to postulate. >The Bereshith account, does not describe a "natural disaster" and >the only myth which should be debunked is the straw man that the >Bereshith account must be reconciled with a naturalistic mechanism. Where did you demonstrate there was anything else, imbecile?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Moses <moses@sinai.6> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-01 18:34 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <56D626EB.74D6@732.732> |
| In reply to | #2068535 |
> >> >> >> This is exactly what you would expect to see after a massive worldwide flood. > >> >> >> Did it happen? Oh yes! > >> >> > according to the Bereshith account, the flood was NOT a "natural > >> >> > disaster" and the only myth which should be debunked is the myth that > >> >> > the Bereshith account must be reconciled with a naturalistic mechanism. > >> >> > according to the Bereshith account God poured out waters and assuaged > >> >> > them, and this is not some natural catastophe upon which "God" merely > >> >> > sat and watched a thing that would have happened anyway without "God's" > >> >> > implementation. > >> It [flood] was a physical impossibility. > >this speaks of an interference from some outside agency, > It says it never happened. some people say the flood never happened. that is not enough for me. the was a landscape altering interference. on a lighter note; describe a physical phenomenon that initiates spacial volume when the physical phenomena we can point at are attributes of volume. zero volume ===physical phenomenon===> spacial volume if no spacial volume. then no physical phenomena. all physical phenomenon must have as its precursor, _something_ which is not physical phenomena, and is not matter not space and not time. the idea that matter and only matter exists is incomplete. let that sink into your mind. [except that this "Lee" person seems very emotionally invested in the demand that no consciousness can exist aside from the material manifestation.] trouble is, consciousness is not precluded from the _something_ it is perfectly reasonable to place consciousness within the _something_. it fits and provides a nifty decision maker to initiate the onset of the physical manifestation at a very precise moment. very simple.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 8 of 12 — ← Prev page 1 … 6 7 [8] 9 10 … 12 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | alt.atheism
csiph-web