Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics > #560938 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-03-09 13:53 -0800 |
| Last post | 2016-03-16 14:46 -0500 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 278 — 20 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics
This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by
below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-03-09 13:53 -0800
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-03-10 17:02 -0600
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-03-11 01:25 -0800
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-03-11 11:36 -0800
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-03-12 07:38 -0600
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-03-13 09:57 -0700
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Earle Jones27 <earle.jones@comcast.net> - 2016-03-13 11:32 -0700
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-03-14 16:33 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-03-14 14:42 -0700
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-03-15 07:00 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-03-15 12:07 -0400
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-03-16 14:46 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-03-16 17:23 -0400
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-03-17 12:32 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-03-17 16:30 -0400
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-03-18 15:46 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-03-19 04:14 -0400
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-03-19 08:10 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-03-19 17:21 -0400
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-03-20 09:47 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-03-20 11:06 -0400
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-03-20 15:49 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-03-20 23:28 -0400
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-03-21 17:35 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-03-22 04:12 -0400
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-03-22 07:02 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-03-22 20:49 +0000
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-03-23 07:01 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-03-23 18:20 +0000
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-03-24 08:16 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-03-24 18:17 +0000
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-03-24 15:57 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-03-25 19:09 +0000
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-03-26 12:08 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-03-26 19:36 +0000
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Virgil <VIRGIL@VIRGIL.com> - 2016-03-26 13:50 -0600
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-03-28 16:20 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-03-29 22:39 +0000
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-03-30 11:15 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-03-30 18:11 +0000
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-03-31 07:03 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-03-31 17:45 +0000
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-03-31 15:16 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-04-01 20:59 +0000
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-04-01 16:13 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-04-01 16:23 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-04-01 16:22 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-04-01 23:21 +0000
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-04-02 07:35 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-04-02 19:38 +0000
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-04-03 08:30 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-04-03 23:46 +0000
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-04-04 13:19 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-04-05 00:54 +0000
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-04-05 07:40 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-04-05 17:16 +0200
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Dreamer In Colore <dreamerincolore@hotmail.com> - 2016-04-05 13:50 -0400
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-04-05 19:23 +0000
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Dreamer In Colore <dreamerincolore@hotmail.com> - 2016-04-05 15:40 -0400
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-04-05 15:35 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-04-06 11:31 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-04-06 20:11 +0000
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-04-07 11:56 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-04-05 15:25 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-04-06 11:30 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-04-06 20:16 +0000
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-04-07 11:58 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-04-08 17:25 +0000
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-04-08 13:01 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-04-08 13:47 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-04-09 18:52 +0000
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-04-09 15:06 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-04-10 08:53 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-04-10 08:47 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-04-10 16:06 +0000
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-04-10 14:18 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-04-10 23:45 +0000
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-04-11 16:19 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-04-12 19:15 +0000
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-04-12 14:52 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-04-08 13:45 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-04-09 18:54 +0000
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-04-10 08:54 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-04-05 19:11 +0000
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-04-06 11:32 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-04-06 20:19 +0000
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Virgil <VIRGIL@VIRGIL.com> - 2016-04-06 14:46 -0600
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-04-06 23:44 +0000
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-04-07 12:03 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-04-08 17:33 +0000
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-04-07 11:59 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-04-08 17:28 +0000
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-04-08 13:47 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-04-09 18:56 +0000
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-04-10 08:55 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-04-06 11:27 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-04-06 20:24 +0000
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-04-07 12:04 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-04-08 17:36 +0000
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-04-08 13:48 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-04-09 18:58 +0000
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-04-10 08:56 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-04-10 16:13 +0000
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-04-10 14:19 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-04-10 23:51 +0000
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-04-11 16:20 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-04-12 19:25 +0000
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-04-05 18:44 +0000
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> - 2016-03-24 15:53 -0700
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-03-27 04:16 -0400
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? je suis charly <charlie-gordon1492@no.where> - 2016-03-27 04:15 -0700
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-03-28 04:01 -0400
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? je suis charly <charlie-gordon1492@no.where> - 2016-03-28 13:59 -0700
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-03-28 16:23 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? je suis charly <charlie-gordon1492@no.where> - 2016-03-28 16:57 -0700
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-03-29 14:17 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-03-28 18:47 -0400
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? je suis charly <charlie-gordon1492@no.where> - 2016-03-28 16:56 -0700
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-03-29 04:40 -0400
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-03-29 14:18 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-03-30 04:58 -0400
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-03-30 11:19 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-03-31 03:41 -0400
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-03-31 07:04 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-03-31 17:11 -0400
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-04-01 16:24 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-04-01 23:25 -0400
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-04-02 07:36 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-04-02 10:59 -0400
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-04-03 08:34 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-04-03 17:10 +0000
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-04-04 13:21 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-04-05 00:50 +0000
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-04-05 08:31 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Dreamer In Colore <dreamerincolore@hotmail.com> - 2016-04-05 13:52 -0400
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-04-06 11:33 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-04-06 19:47 +0000
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-04-07 12:05 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-04-08 17:19 +0000
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-04-08 13:49 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Mitchell Holman <noemail@comcast.net> - 2016-04-08 16:28 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-04-09 07:53 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-04-09 19:10 +0000
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-04-10 08:57 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-04-05 18:41 +0000
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-04-03 17:17 -0400
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-04-04 13:23 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-04-04 15:17 -0400
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-04-05 08:33 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-04-05 18:39 +0000
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-04-06 11:34 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-04-06 19:37 +0000
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-04-07 12:07 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-04-08 17:15 +0000
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-04-08 13:49 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-04-09 19:06 +0000
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-04-10 08:58 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-04-10 16:19 +0000
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-04-10 14:20 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-04-11 00:05 +0000
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-04-11 16:22 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-04-12 19:32 +0000
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-04-10 22:01 +0200
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-04-05 15:09 -0400
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-04-06 11:35 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-04-06 19:39 +0000
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-04-06 19:40 +0000
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-04-07 04:51 -0400
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-04-07 12:08 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-04-08 04:14 -0400
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-04-08 13:50 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-04-09 04:49 -0400
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-04-09 08:29 -0400
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-04-10 05:32 -0400
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-04-09 07:54 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-04-10 05:34 -0400
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-04-10 08:59 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-04-10 15:01 -0400
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-04-10 14:29 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-04-11 05:17 -0400
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-04-11 16:27 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-04-11 18:42 -0400
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-04-12 07:45 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? GordonD <g.davie@btinternet.com> - 2016-04-06 15:25 +0100
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-04-06 11:36 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-04-09 07:57 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Chrysi Cat <chrysicat@gmail.com> - 2016-04-09 14:33 -0600
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-04-10 09:20 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-03-28 16:23 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Chrysi Cat <chrysicat@gmail.com> - 2016-03-28 16:22 -0600
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-03-29 14:21 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? GordonD <g.davie@btinternet.com> - 2016-04-06 15:26 +0100
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-04-06 11:36 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-03-28 18:50 -0400
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? je suis charly <charlie-gordon1492@no.where> - 2016-03-28 17:02 -0700
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-03-29 04:43 -0400
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-03-28 16:22 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-03-28 16:21 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-03-28 18:52 -0400
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-03-29 14:22 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-03-30 05:02 -0400
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-03-30 11:25 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? je suis charly <charlie-gordon1492@no.where> - 2016-03-30 09:50 -0700
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-03-31 07:11 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-03-31 03:47 -0400
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-03-31 07:12 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-03-31 17:26 +0000
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-03-31 17:26 +0000
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-03-31 15:22 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-04-01 20:46 +0000
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-04-01 15:55 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-04-01 16:32 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-04-01 16:30 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-04-01 23:17 +0000
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-04-02 07:38 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-04-02 19:32 +0000
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-04-03 08:37 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-04-03 17:07 +0000
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-04-04 13:24 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-04-05 00:46 +0000
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-04-05 00:07 -0700
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-04-05 00:23 -0700
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-04-09 16:54 -0700
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-04-05 08:34 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-04-05 18:35 +0000
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-04-08 17:11 +0000
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-04-08 13:51 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-04-09 19:02 +0000
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-04-10 09:26 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Ted Street <ted.smasher@gmail.com> - 2016-04-10 14:38 +0000
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-04-10 14:39 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-03-31 17:30 +0000
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-03-31 17:17 -0400
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-04-01 16:32 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-04-01 23:27 -0400
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? je suis charly <charlie-gordon1492@no.where> - 2016-04-02 04:25 -0700
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-04-02 07:39 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-04-02 11:03 -0400
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? je suis charly <charlie-gordon1492@no.where> - 2016-04-02 09:48 -0700
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-04-02 16:14 -0400
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-04-02 23:16 +0000
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-04-02 21:43 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Apollo <nowhere@def.com> - 2016-04-02 22:17 -0600
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-04-03 00:09 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Virgil <VIRGIL@VIRGIL.com> - 2016-04-02 23:30 -0600
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-04-03 00:45 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> - 2016-04-02 23:39 -0700
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Apollo <nowhere@def.com> - 2016-04-03 03:01 -0600
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-04-03 08:40 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-04-03 17:00 +0000
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-04-03 08:38 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-04-03 17:18 -0400
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-04-02 07:38 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-04-02 11:06 -0400
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-04-03 08:40 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-04-03 17:19 -0400
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-04-04 13:24 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-04-04 15:20 -0400
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-04-05 08:35 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-04-05 15:11 -0400
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-04-06 11:37 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-04-07 04:54 -0400
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-04-07 12:09 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-04-08 04:16 -0400
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-04-08 13:51 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-04-09 04:50 -0400
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-04-09 07:58 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-04-10 05:35 -0400
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-04-10 09:27 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-04-10 15:02 -0400
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-04-10 14:40 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-04-11 05:19 -0400
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-04-11 16:28 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-04-11 18:43 -0400
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-04-12 07:49 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-03-15 10:00 -0700
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-03-15 11:19 -0700
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-03-16 14:46 -0500
Page 5 of 14 — ← Prev page 1 … 3 4 [5] 6 7 … 14 Next page →
| From | duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-08 13:45 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <tvufgbtp7j5ket4moh8ph98u7gpgn7i2n7@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #568988 |
On Fri, 8 Apr 2016 17:25:33 +0000 (UTC), Smiler <smiler@jo.king> wrote: >On Thu, 07 Apr 2016 11:58:35 -0500, duke wrote: > >> On Wed, 6 Apr 2016 20:16:07 +0000 (UTC), Smiler <smiler@jo.king> wrote: >> >>>On Wed, 06 Apr 2016 11:30:05 -0500, duke wrote: >>> >>><snip> >>> >>>> Yet it's the challenge to those that profess exactly that - NO God. >>>> Creation, something form nothing into nothingness, >>> >>>Who claims that, other than you demented believers? >>> >>>> is solid evidence FOR the existence of God. >> >>>Nope. Merely your stupid belief. >> >> Watch out our elephant doesn't sit on you. > >What elephant would that be, liar? The one in your garage. >>>> You griks have trouble understanding that. >>>You demented morons have trouble understanding that. >> Hey, YOU cannot deny that the creation of the universe took a creator. >There was no creation. That's merely another of your delusions. Prove it. >> If you don't like calling him God, ok, but YOU cannot offer an >> alternative to the evidence, none of which you have for there being NO >> God. > >What evidence? You've never presented any, merely your stupid beliefs. Creation. the dukester, American-American ***** "The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer." Pope Paul VI *****
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Smiler <smiler@jo.king> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-09 18:54 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nebj5u$1dsa$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #569027 |
On Fri, 08 Apr 2016 13:45:00 -0500, duke wrote: > On Fri, 8 Apr 2016 17:25:33 +0000 (UTC), Smiler <smiler@jo.king> wrote: > >>On Thu, 07 Apr 2016 11:58:35 -0500, duke wrote: >> >>> On Wed, 6 Apr 2016 20:16:07 +0000 (UTC), Smiler <smiler@jo.king> >>> wrote: >>> >>>>On Wed, 06 Apr 2016 11:30:05 -0500, duke wrote: >>>> >>>><snip> >>>> >>>>> Yet it's the challenge to those that profess exactly that - NO God. >>>>> Creation, something form nothing into nothingness, >>>> >>>>Who claims that, other than you demented believers? >>>> >>>>> is solid evidence FOR the existence of God. >>> >>>>Nope. Merely your stupid belief. >>> >>> Watch out our elephant doesn't sit on you. >> >>What elephant would that be, liar? > > The one in your garage. I don't have a garage. >>>>> You griks have trouble understanding that. >>>>You demented morons have trouble understanding that. > >>> Hey, YOU cannot deny that the creation of the universe took a creator. >>There was no creation. That's merely another of your delusions. > > Prove it. Not my job. _You_ have to prove there was one. >>> If you don't like calling him God, ok, but YOU cannot offer an >>> alternative to the evidence, none of which you have for there being NO >>> God. >> >>What evidence? You've never presented any, merely your stupid beliefs. > > Creation. That's not evidence, merely your stupid unevidenced belief. > ***** > "Paedophilia is the most perfect form of Prayer." > Pope Paul VI ***** -- 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 | duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-10 08:54 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <8mmkgblmd75k4plj9b2dna18d90mdkps9p@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #569256 |
On Sat, 9 Apr 2016 18:54:54 +0000 (UTC), Smiler <smiler@jo.king> wrote: >On Fri, 08 Apr 2016 13:45:00 -0500, duke wrote: > >> On Fri, 8 Apr 2016 17:25:33 +0000 (UTC), Smiler <smiler@jo.king> wrote: >> >>>On Thu, 07 Apr 2016 11:58:35 -0500, duke wrote: >>> >>>> On Wed, 6 Apr 2016 20:16:07 +0000 (UTC), Smiler <smiler@jo.king> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>>On Wed, 06 Apr 2016 11:30:05 -0500, duke wrote: >>>>> >>>>><snip> >>>>> >>>>>> Yet it's the challenge to those that profess exactly that - NO God. >>>>>> Creation, something form nothing into nothingness, >>>>> >>>>>Who claims that, other than you demented believers? >>>>> >>>>>> is solid evidence FOR the existence of God. >>>> >>>>>Nope. Merely your stupid belief. >>>> >>>> Watch out our elephant doesn't sit on you. >>> >>>What elephant would that be, liar? >> >> The one in your garage. > >I don't have a garage. Then where do you keep the elephant? >>>>>> You griks have trouble understanding that. >>>>>You demented morons have trouble understanding that. >> >>>> Hey, YOU cannot deny that the creation of the universe took a creator. >>>There was no creation. That's merely another of your delusions. >> >> Prove it. >Not my job. _You_ have to prove there was one. You said it was a delusion. Prove it. >>>> If you don't like calling him God, ok, but YOU cannot offer an >>>> alternative to the evidence, none of which you have for there being NO >>>> God. >>> >>>What evidence? You've never presented any, merely your stupid beliefs. >> >> Creation. > >That's not evidence, merely your stupid unevidenced belief. Creation of all things is not evidence??? Wow. You drinking already today? the dukester, American-American ***** "The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer." Pope Paul VI *****
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Smiler <smiler@jo.king> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-05 19:11 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ne12ln$11v5$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #568043 |
On Tue, 05 Apr 2016 17:16:52 +0200, Alex W. wrote: > On 05/04/2016 14:40, duke wrote: >> On Tue, 5 Apr 2016 00:54:06 +0000 (UTC), Smiler <smiler@jo.king> wrote: >> >>> On Mon, 04 Apr 2016 13:19:25 -0500, duke wrote: >>> >>>> On Sun, 3 Apr 2016 23:46:29 +0000 (UTC), Smiler <smiler@jo.king> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> On Sun, 03 Apr 2016 08:30:04 -0500, duke wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On Sat, 2 Apr 2016 19:38:32 +0000 (UTC), Smiler <smiler@jo.king> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On Sat, 02 Apr 2016 07:35:56 -0500, duke wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Fri, 1 Apr 2016 23:21:54 +0000 (UTC), Smiler <smiler@jo.king> >>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Fri, 01 Apr 2016 16:22:58 -0500, duke wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 1 Apr 2016 20:59:47 +0000 (UTC), Smiler >>>>>>>>>> <smiler@jo.king> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 31 Mar 2016 15:16:44 -0500, duke wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 31 Mar 2016 17:45:25 +0000 (UTC), Smiler >>>>>>>>>>>> <smiler@jo.king> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 31 Mar 2016 07:03:19 -0500, duke wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 30 Mar 2016 18:11:16 +0000 (UTC), Smiler >>>>>>>>>>>>>> <smiler@jo.king> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> <snip> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So where is it, liar Earl? >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I already gave it to you. But you still don't get it. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> You have given no evidence that your claimed 'verge' exists, >>>>>>>>>>>>> liar. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> That's exactly right. You're the one that says there is no >>>>>>>>>>>> verge, >>>>>>>>>>>> so you must see the evidence to declare no verge. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> I need no evidence to not believe your stupid unevidenced >>>>>>>>>>> claims. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Your damnation comes in your inability to support your own >>>>>>>>>> beliefs with evidence. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> What beliefs would they be, Earl? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> That there is NO God. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> That isn't my belief, moron. >>>>>> >>>>>>> I know that there are some claimed gods. As I don't believe in any >>>>>>> of them, I remain an atheist. >>>>>> >>>>>> Actually, that only makes you an agnostic. You can't offer support >>>>>> for their being NO God. Hence you are no atheist. >>>>> >>>>> Only in your demented excuse for a mind. >>>> >>>> Agnostic smiler - sounds musical. >>> >>> Like you, it sounds stupid and is a lie. >> >> Well, you're definitely no atheist. That's an impossibility as there >> is exactly zero (0) evidence to support that there is NO God. > > More proof, if it were needed, that you have no understanding of the > scientific method. Ball-on-a-string boy's lack of understanding is not confined to the scientific method. It's far more general than that. > Science does not depend on positive evidence. Science does not depend _solely_ on positive evidence. Positive evidence alone is often sufficient to determine a fact. > ALL evidence is of equal > value -- including negative. When a scientist looks for something and > cannot find any trace or hint of it, then that is as important and > indicative as any positive evidence. > > Having looked for evidence of any supernatural deity for centuries, > having looked high and low, having used the best available techniques > and the most cunning tests and experiments our clever brains were able > to devise, we have found precisely ... nothing. Zip, nada, bupkis. That > is good, hard, solid 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 | duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-06 11:32 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <9feagbpgjpgn8u098u9lac7nsndjo4oqqc@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #568089 |
On Tue, 5 Apr 2016 19:11:51 +0000 (UTC), Smiler <smiler@jo.king> wrote: >On Tue, 05 Apr 2016 17:16:52 +0200, Alex W. wrote: > >> On 05/04/2016 14:40, duke wrote: >>> On Tue, 5 Apr 2016 00:54:06 +0000 (UTC), Smiler <smiler@jo.king> wrote: >>> >>>> On Mon, 04 Apr 2016 13:19:25 -0500, duke wrote: >>>> >>>>> On Sun, 3 Apr 2016 23:46:29 +0000 (UTC), Smiler <smiler@jo.king> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On Sun, 03 Apr 2016 08:30:04 -0500, duke wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On Sat, 2 Apr 2016 19:38:32 +0000 (UTC), Smiler <smiler@jo.king> >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Sat, 02 Apr 2016 07:35:56 -0500, duke wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Fri, 1 Apr 2016 23:21:54 +0000 (UTC), Smiler <smiler@jo.king> >>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 01 Apr 2016 16:22:58 -0500, duke wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 1 Apr 2016 20:59:47 +0000 (UTC), Smiler >>>>>>>>>>> <smiler@jo.king> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 31 Mar 2016 15:16:44 -0500, duke wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 31 Mar 2016 17:45:25 +0000 (UTC), Smiler >>>>>>>>>>>>> <smiler@jo.king> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 31 Mar 2016 07:03:19 -0500, duke wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 30 Mar 2016 18:11:16 +0000 (UTC), Smiler >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <smiler@jo.king> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> <snip> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So where is it, liar Earl? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I already gave it to you. But you still don't get it. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> You have given no evidence that your claimed 'verge' exists, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> liar. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> That's exactly right. You're the one that says there is no >>>>>>>>>>>>> verge, >>>>>>>>>>>>> so you must see the evidence to declare no verge. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> I need no evidence to not believe your stupid unevidenced >>>>>>>>>>>> claims. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Your damnation comes in your inability to support your own >>>>>>>>>>> beliefs with evidence. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> What beliefs would they be, Earl? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> That there is NO God. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> That isn't my belief, moron. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I know that there are some claimed gods. As I don't believe in any >>>>>>>> of them, I remain an atheist. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Actually, that only makes you an agnostic. You can't offer support >>>>>>> for their being NO God. Hence you are no atheist. >>>>>> >>>>>> Only in your demented excuse for a mind. >>>>> >>>>> Agnostic smiler - sounds musical. >>>> >>>> Like you, it sounds stupid and is a lie. >>> >>> Well, you're definitely no atheist. That's an impossibility as there >>> is exactly zero (0) evidence to support that there is NO God. >> >> More proof, if it were needed, that you have no understanding of the >> scientific method. >Ball-on-a-string boy's lack of understanding is not confined to the >scientific method. It's far more general than that. Hey dummy smiler - demonstrate to me the rotation vectors on the ball's circumference. the dukester, American-American ***** "The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer." Pope Paul VI *****
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Smiler <smiler@jo.king> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-06 20:19 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ne3r0g$1u5f$3@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #568311 |
On Wed, 06 Apr 2016 11:32:22 -0500, duke wrote: > On Tue, 5 Apr 2016 19:11:51 +0000 (UTC), Smiler <smiler@jo.king> wrote: > >>On Tue, 05 Apr 2016 17:16:52 +0200, Alex W. wrote: <snip> >>> More proof, if it were needed, that you have no understanding of the >>> scientific method. > >>Ball-on-a-string boy's lack of understanding is not confined to the >>scientific method. It's far more general than that. > > Hey dummy smiler - demonstrate to me the rotation vectors on the ball's > circumference. No need for that, moron earl. Logic clearly shows that it's rotating. > ***** > "Idiocy is the most perfect form of Prayer." > Pope Paul VI ***** -- 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 | Virgil <VIRGIL@VIRGIL.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-06 14:46 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <VIRGIL-35C35A.14460406042016@news.giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #568389 |
> On Wed, 06 Apr 2016 11:32:22 -0500, duke wrote: > > Hey dummy smiler - demonstrate to me the rotation vectors on the ball's > > circumference. Is Duke still claiming that a ball swinging on a string does not rotate? A person not moving from a position in the plane of rotation but outside the orbit of the ball will successively see all the points on a circumference of the ball. A person not moving from a position in the plane of rotation but inside the orbit of the ball will continuously see the points on the ball where the string attaches. Neither is possible unless the ball rotates with respect to non-rotating axes. So we see that, as expected, Duke has learned nothing new and true in the last few years nor unlearned any of his faithfully held falsehoods. -- Virgil "Mit der Dummheit kampfen Gotter selbst vergebens." (Schiller)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Smiler <smiler@jo.king> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-06 23:44 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ne471q$ic5$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #568397 |
On Wed, 06 Apr 2016 14:46:04 -0600, Virgil wrote: >> On Wed, 06 Apr 2016 11:32:22 -0500, duke wrote: > >> > Hey dummy smiler - demonstrate to me the rotation vectors on the >> > ball's circumference. > > Is Duke still claiming that a ball swinging on a string does not rotate? > > A person not moving from a position in the plane of rotation but outside > the orbit of the ball will successively see all the points on a > circumference of the ball. > > A person not moving from a position in the plane of rotation but inside > the orbit of the ball will continuously see the points on the ball where > the string attaches. > > Neither is possible unless the ball rotates with respect to non-rotating > axes. > > So we see that, as expected, Duke has learned nothing new and true in > the last few years nor unlearned any of his faithfully held falsehoods. Easily demonstrated by this experiment 1) Stand on a spot facing North. Turn through 90 degrees to face East. Turn through another 90 degrees to face South, turn again to face West and finally turn once more to face North again. You have turned 360 degrees on your own vertical axis. This earl agrees with. 2) Walk round in a circle facing in turn, North, East, South, West and North again. You have again turned through 360 degrees on your own vertical axis. Stupid earl denies this is true!!! -- 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 | duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-07 12:03 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <if4dgb5llkj0359e8vionp5ekk2ttpnk9h@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #568397 |
On Wed, 06 Apr 2016 14:46:04 -0600, Virgil <VIRGIL@VIRGIL.com> wrote: > >> On Wed, 06 Apr 2016 11:32:22 -0500, duke wrote: > >> > Hey dummy smiler - demonstrate to me the rotation vectors on the ball's >> > circumference. > >Is Duke still claiming that a ball swinging on a string does not rotate? It's guaranteed. >A person not moving from a position in the plane of rotation but outside >the orbit of the ball will successively see all the points on a >circumference of the ball. That's not rotation. That's the same as standing off on the side and watching an airplane shooting touch and go's. The aircraft is circling, not rotating. >A person not moving from a position in the plane of rotation but inside >the orbit of the ball will continuously see the points on the ball where >the string attaches. > >Neither is possible unless the ball rotates with respect to non-rotating >axes. >So we see that, as expected, Duke has learned nothing new and true in >the last few years nor unlearned any of his faithfully held falsehoods. Heeheehee. the dukester, American-American ***** "The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer." Pope Paul VI *****
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Smiler <smiler@jo.king> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-08 17:33 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ne8q1d$c21$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #568605 |
On Thu, 07 Apr 2016 12:03:36 -0500, duke wrote: > On Wed, 06 Apr 2016 14:46:04 -0600, Virgil <VIRGIL@VIRGIL.com> wrote: > >>> On Wed, 06 Apr 2016 11:32:22 -0500, duke wrote: >> >>> > Hey dummy smiler - demonstrate to me the rotation vectors on the >>> > ball's circumference. >> >>Is Duke still claiming that a ball swinging on a string does not rotate? > > It's guaranteed. Yep. It's guaranteed that you're a moron. >>A person not moving from a position in the plane of rotation but outside >>the orbit of the ball will successively see all the points on a >>circumference of the ball. > > That's not rotation. Yes it is. > That's the same as standing off on the side and > watching an airplane shooting touch and go's. The aircraft is circling, > not rotating. Yes it is. >>A person not moving from a position in the plane of rotation but inside >>the orbit of the ball will continuously see the points on the ball where >>the string attaches. >> >>Neither is possible unless the ball rotates with respect to non-rotating >>axes. > >>So we see that, as expected, Duke has learned nothing new and true in >>the last few years nor unlearned any of his faithfully held falsehoods. > > Heeheehee. Your moronic laughter is another sign of your stupidity. > ***** > "The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer." > Pope Paul VI ***** -- 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 | duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-07 11:59 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <4e4dgblm5au1stk941jo6vgsvaiok2ooi9@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #568389 |
On Wed, 6 Apr 2016 20:19:28 +0000 (UTC), Smiler <smiler@jo.king> wrote: >On Wed, 06 Apr 2016 11:32:22 -0500, duke wrote: > >> On Tue, 5 Apr 2016 19:11:51 +0000 (UTC), Smiler <smiler@jo.king> wrote: >> >>>On Tue, 05 Apr 2016 17:16:52 +0200, Alex W. wrote: > ><snip> > >>>> More proof, if it were needed, that you have no understanding of the >>>> scientific method. >> >>>Ball-on-a-string boy's lack of understanding is not confined to the >>>scientific method. It's far more general than that. >> >> Hey dummy smiler - demonstrate to me the rotation vectors on the ball's >> circumference. > >No need for that, moron earl. Logic clearly shows that it's rotating. Not without rotations vectors. A ball on a string has NO rotation vectors. the dukester, American-American ***** "The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer." Pope Paul VI *****
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Smiler <smiler@jo.king> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-08 17:28 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ne8pnu$7s6$5@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #568604 |
On Thu, 07 Apr 2016 11:59:24 -0500, duke wrote: > On Wed, 6 Apr 2016 20:19:28 +0000 (UTC), Smiler <smiler@jo.king> wrote: > >>On Wed, 06 Apr 2016 11:32:22 -0500, duke wrote: >> >>> On Tue, 5 Apr 2016 19:11:51 +0000 (UTC), Smiler <smiler@jo.king> >>> wrote: >>> >>>>On Tue, 05 Apr 2016 17:16:52 +0200, Alex W. wrote: >> >><snip> >> >>>>> More proof, if it were needed, that you have no understanding of the >>>>> scientific method. >>> >>>>Ball-on-a-string boy's lack of understanding is not confined to the >>>>scientific method. It's far more general than that. >>> >>> Hey dummy smiler - demonstrate to me the rotation vectors on the >>> ball's circumference. >> >>No need for that, moron earl. Logic clearly shows that it's rotating. > > Not without rotations vectors. A ball on a string has NO rotation > vectors. Your stupid assertions are not evidence. > ***** > "Paedophila is the most perfect form of Prayer." > Pope Paul VI ***** -- 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 | duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-08 13:47 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <66vfgbp71ejobm5fnenlsrc3hj9qcik2oa@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #568990 |
On Fri, 8 Apr 2016 17:28:30 +0000 (UTC), Smiler <smiler@jo.king> wrote: >On Thu, 07 Apr 2016 11:59:24 -0500, duke wrote: > >> On Wed, 6 Apr 2016 20:19:28 +0000 (UTC), Smiler <smiler@jo.king> wrote: >> >>>On Wed, 06 Apr 2016 11:32:22 -0500, duke wrote: >>> >>>> On Tue, 5 Apr 2016 19:11:51 +0000 (UTC), Smiler <smiler@jo.king> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>>On Tue, 05 Apr 2016 17:16:52 +0200, Alex W. wrote: >>> >>><snip> >>> >>>>>> More proof, if it were needed, that you have no understanding of the >>>>>> scientific method. >>>> >>>>>Ball-on-a-string boy's lack of understanding is not confined to the >>>>>scientific method. It's far more general than that. >>>> >>>> Hey dummy smiler - demonstrate to me the rotation vectors on the >>>> ball's circumference. >>> >>>No need for that, moron earl. Logic clearly shows that it's rotating. >> >> Not without rotations vectors. A ball on a string has NO rotation >> vectors. > >Your stupid assertions are not evidence. Neither are yours. the dukester, American-American ***** "The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer." Pope Paul VI *****
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Smiler <smiler@jo.king> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-09 18:56 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nebj91$1dsa$3@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #569031 |
On Fri, 08 Apr 2016 13:47:50 -0500, duke wrote: > On Fri, 8 Apr 2016 17:28:30 +0000 (UTC), Smiler <smiler@jo.king> wrote: > >>On Thu, 07 Apr 2016 11:59:24 -0500, duke wrote: >> >>> On Wed, 6 Apr 2016 20:19:28 +0000 (UTC), Smiler <smiler@jo.king> >>> wrote: >>> >>>>On Wed, 06 Apr 2016 11:32:22 -0500, duke wrote: >>>> >>>>> On Tue, 5 Apr 2016 19:11:51 +0000 (UTC), Smiler <smiler@jo.king> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On Tue, 05 Apr 2016 17:16:52 +0200, Alex W. wrote: >>>> >>>><snip> >>>> >>>>>>> More proof, if it were needed, that you have no understanding of >>>>>>> the scientific method. >>>>> >>>>>>Ball-on-a-string boy's lack of understanding is not confined to the >>>>>>scientific method. It's far more general than that. >>>>> >>>>> Hey dummy smiler - demonstrate to me the rotation vectors on the >>>>> ball's circumference. >>>> >>>>No need for that, moron earl. Logic clearly shows that it's rotating. >>> >>> Not without rotations vectors. A ball on a string has NO rotation >>> vectors. >> >>Your stupid assertions are not evidence. > > Neither are yours. My experiments are. > ***** > "Masturbation is the most perfect form of Prayer." > Pope Paul VI ***** -- 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 | duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-10 08:55 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <0pmkgb1sqr14v07t4rr494deios0km4ia8@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #569257 |
On Sat, 9 Apr 2016 18:56:33 +0000 (UTC), Smiler <smiler@jo.king> wrote: >On Fri, 08 Apr 2016 13:47:50 -0500, duke wrote: > >> On Fri, 8 Apr 2016 17:28:30 +0000 (UTC), Smiler <smiler@jo.king> wrote: >> >>>On Thu, 07 Apr 2016 11:59:24 -0500, duke wrote: >>> >>>> On Wed, 6 Apr 2016 20:19:28 +0000 (UTC), Smiler <smiler@jo.king> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>>On Wed, 06 Apr 2016 11:32:22 -0500, duke wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On Tue, 5 Apr 2016 19:11:51 +0000 (UTC), Smiler <smiler@jo.king> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>On Tue, 05 Apr 2016 17:16:52 +0200, Alex W. wrote: >>>>> >>>>><snip> >>>>> >>>>>>>> More proof, if it were needed, that you have no understanding of >>>>>>>> the scientific method. >>>>>> >>>>>>>Ball-on-a-string boy's lack of understanding is not confined to the >>>>>>>scientific method. It's far more general than that. >>>>>> >>>>>> Hey dummy smiler - demonstrate to me the rotation vectors on the >>>>>> ball's circumference. >>>>> >>>>>No need for that, moron earl. Logic clearly shows that it's rotating. >>>> >>>> Not without rotations vectors. A ball on a string has NO rotation >>>> vectors. >>> >>>Your stupid assertions are not evidence. >> >> Neither are yours. > >My experiments are. Great, then demonstrate the rotation vectors on a ball on a string. the dukester, American-American ***** "The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer." Pope Paul VI *****
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-06 11:27 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <q4eagbhp1nm95jkvogtddn25su3pbl56ke@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #568043 |
On Tue, 5 Apr 2016 17:16:52 +0200, "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: >On 05/04/2016 14:40, duke wrote: >> On Tue, 5 Apr 2016 00:54:06 +0000 (UTC), Smiler <smiler@jo.king> wrote: >> >>> On Mon, 04 Apr 2016 13:19:25 -0500, duke wrote: >>> >>>> On Sun, 3 Apr 2016 23:46:29 +0000 (UTC), Smiler <smiler@jo.king> wrote: >>>> >>>>> On Sun, 03 Apr 2016 08:30:04 -0500, duke wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On Sat, 2 Apr 2016 19:38:32 +0000 (UTC), Smiler <smiler@jo.king> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On Sat, 02 Apr 2016 07:35:56 -0500, duke wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Fri, 1 Apr 2016 23:21:54 +0000 (UTC), Smiler <smiler@jo.king> >>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Fri, 01 Apr 2016 16:22:58 -0500, duke wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 1 Apr 2016 20:59:47 +0000 (UTC), Smiler <smiler@jo.king> >>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 31 Mar 2016 15:16:44 -0500, duke wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 31 Mar 2016 17:45:25 +0000 (UTC), Smiler >>>>>>>>>>>> <smiler@jo.king> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 31 Mar 2016 07:03:19 -0500, duke wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 30 Mar 2016 18:11:16 +0000 (UTC), Smiler >>>>>>>>>>>>>> <smiler@jo.king> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> <snip> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So where is it, liar Earl? >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I already gave it to you. But you still don't get it. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> You have given no evidence that your claimed 'verge' exists, >>>>>>>>>>>>> liar. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> That's exactly right. You're the one that says there is no >>>>>>>>>>>> verge, >>>>>>>>>>>> so you must see the evidence to declare no verge. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> I need no evidence to not believe your stupid unevidenced claims. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Your damnation comes in your inability to support your own beliefs >>>>>>>>>> with evidence. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> What beliefs would they be, Earl? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> That there is NO God. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> That isn't my belief, moron. >>>>>> >>>>>>> I know that there are some claimed gods. As I don't believe in any of >>>>>>> them, I remain an atheist. >>>>>> >>>>>> Actually, that only makes you an agnostic. You can't offer support >>>>>> for their being NO God. Hence you are no atheist. >>>>> >>>>> Only in your demented excuse for a mind. >>>> >>>> Agnostic smiler - sounds musical. >>> >>> Like you, it sounds stupid and is a lie. >> >> Well, you're definitely no atheist. That's an impossibility as there is exactly >> zero (0) evidence to support that there is NO God. > >More proof, if it were needed, that you have no understanding of the >scientific method. Science is on the verge of almost being able to prove the existence of God. >Science does not depend on positive evidence. ALL evidence is of equal >value -- including negative. When a scientist looks for something and >cannot find any trace or hint of it, then that is as important and >indicative as any positive evidence. And God willing the universe into existence will be rock solid revelation. Science would LOVE to come up with that one. >Having looked for evidence of any supernatural deity for centuries, >having looked high and low, having used the best available techniques >and the most cunning tests and experiments our clever brains were able >to devise, we have found precisely ... nothing. Zip, nada, bupkis. >That is good, hard, solid evidence. Where did the universe come from? Welcome to God. > the dukester, American-American ***** "The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer." Pope Paul VI *****
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Smiler <smiler@jo.king> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-06 20:24 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ne3r9o$1u5f$4@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #568307 |
On Wed, 06 Apr 2016 11:27:59 -0500, duke wrote: > On Tue, 5 Apr 2016 17:16:52 +0200, "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > >>On 05/04/2016 14:40, duke wrote: >>> On Tue, 5 Apr 2016 00:54:06 +0000 (UTC), Smiler <smiler@jo.king> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> On Mon, 04 Apr 2016 13:19:25 -0500, duke wrote: >>>> >>>>> On Sun, 3 Apr 2016 23:46:29 +0000 (UTC), Smiler <smiler@jo.king> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On Sun, 03 Apr 2016 08:30:04 -0500, duke wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On Sat, 2 Apr 2016 19:38:32 +0000 (UTC), Smiler <smiler@jo.king> >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Sat, 02 Apr 2016 07:35:56 -0500, duke wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Fri, 1 Apr 2016 23:21:54 +0000 (UTC), Smiler <smiler@jo.king> >>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 01 Apr 2016 16:22:58 -0500, duke wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 1 Apr 2016 20:59:47 +0000 (UTC), Smiler >>>>>>>>>>> <smiler@jo.king> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 31 Mar 2016 15:16:44 -0500, duke wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 31 Mar 2016 17:45:25 +0000 (UTC), Smiler >>>>>>>>>>>>> <smiler@jo.king> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 31 Mar 2016 07:03:19 -0500, duke wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 30 Mar 2016 18:11:16 +0000 (UTC), Smiler >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <smiler@jo.king> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> <snip> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So where is it, liar Earl? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I already gave it to you. But you still don't get it. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> You have given no evidence that your claimed 'verge' >>>>>>>>>>>>>> exists, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> liar. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> That's exactly right. You're the one that says there is no >>>>>>>>>>>>> verge, >>>>>>>>>>>>> so you must see the evidence to declare no verge. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> I need no evidence to not believe your stupid unevidenced >>>>>>>>>>>> claims. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Your damnation comes in your inability to support your own >>>>>>>>>>> beliefs with evidence. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> What beliefs would they be, Earl? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> That there is NO God. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> That isn't my belief, moron. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I know that there are some claimed gods. As I don't believe in >>>>>>>> any of them, I remain an atheist. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Actually, that only makes you an agnostic. You can't offer >>>>>>> support for their being NO God. Hence you are no atheist. >>>>>> >>>>>> Only in your demented excuse for a mind. >>>>> >>>>> Agnostic smiler - sounds musical. >>>> >>>> Like you, it sounds stupid and is a lie. >>> >>> Well, you're definitely no atheist. That's an impossibility as there >>> is exactly zero (0) evidence to support that there is NO God. >> >>More proof, if it were needed, that you have no understanding of the >>scientific method. > > Science is on the verge of almost being able to prove the existence of > God. Your stupid assertions are NOT evidence. >>Science does not depend on positive evidence. ALL evidence is of equal >>value -- including negative. When a scientist looks for something and >>cannot find any trace or hint of it, then that is as important and >>indicative as any positive evidence. > > And God willing the universe into existence will be rock solid > revelation. Science would LOVE to come up with that one. Science is not interested in your demented beliefs. >>Having looked for evidence of any supernatural deity for centuries, >>having looked high and low, having used the best available techniques >>and the most cunning tests and experiments our clever brains were able >>to devise, we have found precisely ... nothing. Zip, nada, bupkis. That >>is good, hard, solid evidence. > > Where did the universe come from? A singularity. > Welcome to God. You're quite welcome to your supposed god character. > ***** > "Paedophilia is the most perfect form of Prayer." > Pope Paul VI ***** -- 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 | duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-07 12:04 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <mn4dgbp4r7nt2cclreg667uq68k7rmrpiv@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #568390 |
On Wed, 6 Apr 2016 20:24:24 +0000 (UTC), Smiler <smiler@jo.king> wrote: >On Wed, 06 Apr 2016 11:27:59 -0500, duke wrote: > >> On Tue, 5 Apr 2016 17:16:52 +0200, "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: >> >>>On 05/04/2016 14:40, duke wrote: >>>> On Tue, 5 Apr 2016 00:54:06 +0000 (UTC), Smiler <smiler@jo.king> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> On Mon, 04 Apr 2016 13:19:25 -0500, duke wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On Sun, 3 Apr 2016 23:46:29 +0000 (UTC), Smiler <smiler@jo.king> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On Sun, 03 Apr 2016 08:30:04 -0500, duke wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Sat, 2 Apr 2016 19:38:32 +0000 (UTC), Smiler <smiler@jo.king> >>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Sat, 02 Apr 2016 07:35:56 -0500, duke wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 1 Apr 2016 23:21:54 +0000 (UTC), Smiler <smiler@jo.king> >>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 01 Apr 2016 16:22:58 -0500, duke wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 1 Apr 2016 20:59:47 +0000 (UTC), Smiler >>>>>>>>>>>> <smiler@jo.king> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 31 Mar 2016 15:16:44 -0500, duke wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 31 Mar 2016 17:45:25 +0000 (UTC), Smiler >>>>>>>>>>>>>> <smiler@jo.king> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 31 Mar 2016 07:03:19 -0500, duke wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 30 Mar 2016 18:11:16 +0000 (UTC), Smiler >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <smiler@jo.king> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> <snip> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So where is it, liar Earl? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I already gave it to you. But you still don't get it. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You have given no evidence that your claimed 'verge' >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> exists, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> liar. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's exactly right. You're the one that says there is no >>>>>>>>>>>>>> verge, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> so you must see the evidence to declare no verge. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> I need no evidence to not believe your stupid unevidenced >>>>>>>>>>>>> claims. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Your damnation comes in your inability to support your own >>>>>>>>>>>> beliefs with evidence. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> What beliefs would they be, Earl? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> That there is NO God. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> That isn't my belief, moron. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I know that there are some claimed gods. As I don't believe in >>>>>>>>> any of them, I remain an atheist. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Actually, that only makes you an agnostic. You can't offer >>>>>>>> support for their being NO God. Hence you are no atheist. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Only in your demented excuse for a mind. >>>>>> >>>>>> Agnostic smiler - sounds musical. >>>>> >>>>> Like you, it sounds stupid and is a lie. >>>> >>>> Well, you're definitely no atheist. That's an impossibility as there >>>> is exactly zero (0) evidence to support that there is NO God. >>> >>>More proof, if it were needed, that you have no understanding of the >>>scientific method. >> >> Science is on the verge of almost being able to prove the existence of >> God. > >Your stupid assertions are NOT evidence. You can't hide from the creation of the universe. All you can do is suggest alternatives to the method God used in creation. the dukester, American-American ***** "The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer." Pope Paul VI *****
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Smiler <smiler@jo.king> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-08 17:36 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ne8q6n$c21$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #568606 |
On Thu, 07 Apr 2016 12:04:43 -0500, duke wrote: > On Wed, 6 Apr 2016 20:24:24 +0000 (UTC), Smiler <smiler@jo.king> wrote: > >>On Wed, 06 Apr 2016 11:27:59 -0500, duke wrote: <snip> >>> Science is on the verge of almost being able to prove the existence of >>> God. >> >>Your stupid assertions are NOT evidence. > > You can't hide from the creation of the universe. All you can do is > suggest alternatives to the method God used in creation. That would be the supposed creation for which you have no evidence. > ***** > "Telling lies is the most perfect form of Prayer." > Pope Paul VI ***** -- 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 | duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-08 13:48 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <u6vfgbt074r0ua92i2i6mo0e41nbngjq55@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #568995 |
On Fri, 8 Apr 2016 17:36:23 +0000 (UTC), Smiler <smiler@jo.king> wrote: >On Thu, 07 Apr 2016 12:04:43 -0500, duke wrote: > >> On Wed, 6 Apr 2016 20:24:24 +0000 (UTC), Smiler <smiler@jo.king> wrote: >> >>>On Wed, 06 Apr 2016 11:27:59 -0500, duke wrote: > ><snip> > >>>> Science is on the verge of almost being able to prove the existence of >>>> God. >>> >>>Your stupid assertions are NOT evidence. >> >> You can't hide from the creation of the universe. All you can do is >> suggest alternatives to the method God used in creation. > >That would be the supposed creation for which you have no evidence. We're here, aren't we. the dukester, American-American ***** "The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer." Pope Paul VI *****
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 5 of 14 — ← Prev page 1 … 3 4 [5] 6 7 … 14 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web