Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.skeptic > #109693 > unrolled thread
| Started by | mur@. |
|---|---|
| First post | 2015-12-14 00:52 -0500 |
| Last post | 2015-12-22 22:52 -0800 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 468 — 27 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.skeptic
www.thescienceforum.com/ is a pussy forum you might love mur@. - 2015-12-14 00:52 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2015-12-15 03:19 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> - 2015-12-15 10:25 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2015-12-17 00:10 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> - 2015-12-17 10:28 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2015-12-17 12:22 -0600
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Seymore4Head <Seymore4Head@Hotmail.invalid> - 2016-04-23 12:43 -0400
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love mur@. - 2016-02-23 21:39 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2015-12-15 11:47 -0600
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love felix_unger <me@nothere.biz> - 2015-12-17 20:24 +1100
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> - 2015-12-17 10:29 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2015-12-17 11:38 -0600
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love felix_unger <me@nothere.biz> - 2015-12-18 11:37 +1100
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love felix_unger <me@nothere.biz> - 2015-12-18 11:32 +1100
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> - 2015-12-18 11:22 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2015-12-18 12:55 -0600
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love felix_unger <me@nothere.biz> - 2015-12-19 11:50 +1100
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love youngblood2949@gmail.com - 2015-12-22 23:12 -0800
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> - 2015-12-19 11:01 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love felix_unger <me@nothere.biz> - 2015-12-20 09:24 +1100
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> - 2015-12-20 10:43 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love felix_unger <me@nothere.biz> - 2015-12-19 11:35 +1100
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> - 2015-12-19 11:11 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love felix_unger <me@nothere.biz> - 2015-12-20 09:23 +1100
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love youngblood2949@gmail.com - 2015-12-22 23:30 -0800
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love mur@. - 2016-02-23 21:39 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Dave Taylor <triple_crown_1@la_kings.con> - 2016-02-23 20:58 -0800
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> - 2016-02-24 11:33 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-02-24 22:06 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> - 2016-02-25 09:54 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love mur@. - 2016-02-25 23:00 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-02-26 04:16 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love felix <me@nothere.invalid> - 2016-02-28 08:23 +1100
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love mur@. - 2016-02-27 23:36 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love felix <me@nothere.invalid> - 2016-02-28 17:26 +1100
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-02-28 17:57 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-02-28 19:23 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-02-29 03:53 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love mur@. - 2016-02-28 22:44 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-02-29 04:00 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love mur@. - 2016-02-29 21:57 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Olrik <olrik666@gmail.com> - 2016-03-01 00:08 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-01 06:16 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Wisely Non-Theist <aaa@bbb.ccc> - 2016-03-01 00:05 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-03-01 01:54 -0600
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love felix <me@nothere.invalid> - 2016-03-01 22:02 +1100
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-03-01 20:07 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-03-01 14:50 -0600
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> - 2016-03-02 11:44 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-03-02 23:08 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> - 2016-03-03 12:25 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-03-03 22:26 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love felix <me@nothere.invalid> - 2016-03-01 19:50 +1100
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love mur@. - 2016-03-01 21:29 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-02 15:47 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love mur@. - 2016-03-02 22:31 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-03 17:34 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love mur@. - 2016-03-03 21:25 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Leonard Leonard <l.a.radio@kfi.con> - 2016-03-01 06:56 -0800
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love felix <me@nothere.invalid> - 2016-03-01 19:48 +1100
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-01 18:51 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love felix <me@nothere.invalid> - 2016-03-03 12:55 +1100
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love mur@. - 2016-03-03 21:25 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love mur@. - 2016-02-28 22:43 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love felix <me@nothere.invalid> - 2016-03-01 19:54 +1100
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love mur@. - 2016-03-01 21:30 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love felix <me@nothere.invalid> - 2016-03-03 12:56 +1100
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love mur@. - 2016-03-05 21:56 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love mur@. - 2016-02-27 23:37 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love felix <me@nothere.invalid> - 2016-02-28 17:23 +1100
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-02-28 17:52 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-02-28 13:39 -0600
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love mur@. - 2016-02-28 22:46 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-02-29 03:53 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> - 2016-02-29 10:53 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-02-29 12:19 -0600
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-02-29 18:58 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> - 2016-03-01 10:49 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-03-01 13:21 -0600
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love MattB <trdell12345@gmail.com> - 2016-03-01 11:28 -0800
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> - 2016-03-02 11:35 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> - 2016-03-02 11:26 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-03-02 14:16 -0600
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-02 22:58 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-03-02 19:16 -0600
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> - 2016-03-03 12:40 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> - 2016-03-03 12:06 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-03-03 14:34 -0600
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> - 2016-03-04 11:36 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-04 20:28 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> - 2016-03-05 11:29 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-03-04 21:56 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-03-05 13:53 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-01 20:06 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> - 2016-03-02 11:41 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-02 22:24 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-03-02 16:47 -0600
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> - 2016-03-03 12:14 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-03 19:45 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> - 2016-03-04 10:51 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-04 20:08 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> - 2016-03-04 17:34 -0800
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> - 2016-03-05 12:04 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> - 2016-03-05 16:27 -0800
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-02-29 18:50 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-02-29 13:34 -0600
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-01 01:07 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love felix <me@nothere.invalid> - 2016-03-01 19:58 +1100
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love mur@. - 2016-02-28 22:46 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love felix <me@nothere.invalid> - 2016-03-01 19:44 +1100
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> - 2016-03-01 01:37 -0800
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-03-01 06:13 -0600
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-01 18:51 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-03-01 13:25 -0600
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-01 20:06 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> - 2016-03-02 11:30 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-03-02 12:44 -0600
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-02 22:24 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> - 2016-03-03 10:54 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-03 19:36 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-03-03 22:37 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-04 01:49 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-03-02 18:46 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Wisely Non-Theist <aaa@bbb.ccc> - 2016-03-02 12:19 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-03-03 12:56 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> - 2016-03-03 12:43 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> - 2016-03-03 10:56 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love mur@. - 2016-03-01 21:26 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love mur@. - 2016-02-28 22:44 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love felix <me@nothere.invalid> - 2016-02-28 08:15 +1100
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love mur@. - 2016-02-25 23:00 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love mur@. - 2016-02-25 23:00 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love mur@. - 2016-02-23 21:40 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love felix <me@nothere.invalid> - 2016-02-28 08:12 +1100
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> - 2016-02-27 19:15 -0800
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-02-27 22:26 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love felix <me@nothere.invalid> - 2016-02-28 16:03 +1100
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-02-28 01:15 -0600
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love mur@. - 2016-03-07 21:22 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love "wagner" <wagner@dont-email.me> - 2016-04-01 03:52 +0200
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Ördög <devil@hell.net> - 2016-04-01 02:42 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love mur@. - 2016-04-03 20:52 -0400
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Ördög <devil@hell.net> - 2016-04-04 02:31 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love mur@. - 2016-04-09 10:23 -0400
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love "Ted&Alice Street" <sam.tedesco@notgmail.c> - 2016-02-28 16:06 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> - 2016-02-28 11:30 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love "Ted&Alice Street" <sam.tedesco@notgmail.c> - 2016-02-28 19:28 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Wisely Non-Theist <aaa@bbb.ccc> - 2016-02-28 13:39 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-02-28 15:49 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Virgil <VIRGIL@VIRGIL.com> - 2016-02-28 16:54 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-02-28 18:58 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love felix <me@nothere.invalid> - 2016-03-01 20:22 +1100
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> - 2016-03-01 01:35 -0800
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love felix <me@nothere.invalid> - 2016-03-01 21:58 +1100
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> - 2016-03-01 04:40 -0800
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-03-01 08:23 -0600
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-01 20:06 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-03-01 06:15 -0600
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-01 19:25 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-03-01 15:33 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-01 20:59 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-03-01 16:06 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-01 22:20 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-03-01 20:26 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-02 05:23 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-01 22:23 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-03-01 17:34 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Wisely Non-Theist <aaa@bbb.ccc> - 2016-03-01 16:04 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-03-01 20:36 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Wisely Non-Theist <aaa@bbb.ccc> - 2016-03-02 01:09 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> - 2016-03-02 11:50 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-03-02 14:20 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Virgil <VIRGIL@VIRGIL.com> - 2016-03-02 14:28 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-03-02 15:32 -0600
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Virgil <VIRGIL@VIRGIL.com> - 2016-03-02 16:12 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-03-02 19:49 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-03-03 12:58 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-03-03 08:23 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-03 17:50 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-03-03 13:53 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-03 19:36 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-03-03 15:04 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Vincent Maycock <vam100@aol.com> - 2016-03-03 18:18 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-03-03 18:52 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Apollo <nowhere@def.com> - 2016-03-03 18:41 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-03-03 21:09 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Apollo <nowhere@def.com> - 2016-03-03 22:48 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-03-04 07:48 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Apollo <nowhere@def.com> - 2016-03-04 13:35 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-03-04 16:51 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-05 01:00 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-03-04 20:25 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Apollo <nowhere@def.com> - 2016-03-04 21:49 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-03-05 00:24 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Apollo <nowhere@def.com> - 2016-03-05 02:21 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-03-05 08:32 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-05 06:57 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-03-03 14:41 -0600
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-03-03 16:19 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-04 01:40 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-03-03 21:08 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> - 2016-03-03 12:27 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-03-03 15:25 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> - 2016-03-04 10:52 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-03-04 14:21 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Virgil <VIRGIL@VIRGIL.com> - 2016-03-04 13:18 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-03-04 16:18 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Virgil <VIRGIL@VIRGIL.com> - 2016-03-04 14:42 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-03-04 17:17 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Virgil <VIRGIL@VIRGIL.com> - 2016-03-04 16:04 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-03-04 18:14 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Virgil <VIRGIL@VIRGIL.com> - 2016-03-04 21:09 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-03-05 00:19 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Virgil <VIRGIL@VIRGIL.com> - 2016-03-05 02:37 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-03-05 08:33 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love John Ritson <j.ritson@hotmail.co.uk> - 2016-03-05 16:19 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Virgil <VIRGIL@VIRGIL.com> - 2016-03-05 12:32 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-03-05 20:04 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> - 2016-03-05 11:48 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> - 2016-03-05 11:39 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Virgil <VIRGIL@VIRGIL.com> - 2016-03-05 13:09 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> - 2016-03-06 10:51 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> - 2016-03-05 11:29 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-03-05 15:05 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Virgil <VIRGIL@VIRGIL.com> - 2016-03-05 13:20 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-03-05 19:36 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-06 01:25 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum Rob will hate! Virgil <VIRGIL@VIRGIL.com> - 2016-03-05 18:38 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum Rob will hate! Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-06 04:59 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum Rob will hate! Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-03-06 00:14 -0600
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum Rob will hate! Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-06 09:18 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum Rob will hate! Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-03-06 10:50 -0600
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum Rob will hate! Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-06 20:13 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> - 2016-03-06 10:50 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Irreverend Dave <reverend_dave@ministerpants.com> - 2016-03-04 13:51 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-03-04 09:09 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Virgil <VIRGIL@VIRGIL.com> - 2016-03-04 13:24 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-03-04 16:25 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Virgil <VIRGIL@VIRGIL.com> - 2016-03-04 14:39 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-03-04 17:36 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Virgil <VIRGIL@VIRGIL.com> - 2016-03-04 16:02 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-03-04 18:12 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Virgil <VIRGIL@VIRGIL.com> - 2016-03-04 20:58 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-03-02 20:00 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-03-03 13:02 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-03-03 08:47 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-03 17:53 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-03-03 13:48 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-03 19:36 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-03-03 14:56 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-03-03 23:12 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-04 01:24 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-03-03 21:01 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love "Ted&Alice Street" <sam.tedesco@notgmail.c> - 2016-03-04 02:23 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> - 2016-03-04 11:51 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love "Ted&Alice Street" <sam.tedesco@notgmail.c> - 2016-03-04 22:09 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-03-04 23:31 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love "Ted&Alice Street" <sam.tedesco@notgmail.c> - 2016-03-04 23:55 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-03-05 13:54 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-03-05 09:08 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love "Ted&Alice Street" <sam.tedesco@notgmail.c> - 2016-03-05 15:21 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> - 2016-03-05 11:45 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love "Ted&Alice Street" <sam.tedesco@notgmail.c> - 2016-03-05 19:22 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love "%" <persent@gmail.com> - 2016-03-05 16:04 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> - 2016-03-06 10:49 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love "Ted&Alice Street" <sam.tedesco@notgmail.c> - 2016-03-06 18:22 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-03-06 11:37 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> - 2016-03-06 11:05 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-03-07 12:11 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> - 2016-03-07 11:38 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-07 18:52 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love mur@. - 2016-03-07 21:22 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-08 07:55 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love mur@. - 2016-03-07 21:21 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-03-03 19:14 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-03-03 15:16 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Vincent Maycock <vam100@aol.com> - 2016-03-03 18:14 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-03-03 18:49 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Apollo <nowhere@def.com> - 2016-03-03 22:36 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-03-04 07:09 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-04 01:40 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-03-03 21:03 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-04 02:22 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-03-03 21:30 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-04 02:38 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-03-03 21:50 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-04 05:46 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Virgil <VIRGIL@VIRGIL.com> - 2016-03-03 23:17 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-03-04 07:25 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-04 16:09 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-03-04 12:45 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Virgil <VIRGIL@VIRGIL.com> - 2016-03-04 14:12 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-03-04 17:15 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Virgil <VIRGIL@VIRGIL.com> - 2016-03-04 16:12 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-03-04 18:17 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Virgil <VIRGIL@VIRGIL.com> - 2016-03-04 20:48 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-03-04 23:56 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Virgil <VIRGIL@VIRGIL.com> - 2016-03-04 22:17 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-03-05 00:35 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Virgil <VIRGIL@VIRGIL.com> - 2016-03-05 01:40 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-03-05 08:28 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Virgil <VIRGIL@VIRGIL.com> - 2016-03-05 12:48 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> - 2016-03-05 16:12 -0800
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-05 18:08 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-03-05 15:00 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Wisely Non-Theist <aaa@bbb.ccc> - 2016-03-05 13:29 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-06 01:19 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-06 01:19 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love mur@. - 2016-03-05 21:55 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-05 01:09 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-03-04 20:30 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Virgil <VIRGIL@VIRGIL.com> - 2016-03-04 21:37 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-05 06:57 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Virgil <VIRGIL@VIRGIL.com> - 2016-03-04 21:32 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-05 06:57 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> - 2016-03-05 11:50 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-05 01:09 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-03-04 20:28 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Virgil <VIRGIL@VIRGIL.com> - 2016-03-04 21:44 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-03-05 00:31 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Virgil <VIRGIL@VIRGIL.com> - 2016-03-05 02:19 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-03-05 08:30 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Virgil <VIRGIL@VIRGIL.com> - 2016-03-05 12:36 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Wisely Non-Theist <aaa@bbb.ccc> - 2016-03-04 14:00 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-03-04 17:07 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Wisely Non-Theist <aaa@bbb.ccc> - 2016-03-04 16:15 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-03-04 18:19 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Wisely Non-Theist <aaa@bbb.ccc> - 2016-03-04 21:03 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-03-05 00:13 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Virgil <VIRGIL@VIRGIL.com> - 2016-03-04 22:29 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-03-05 00:39 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Virgil <VIRGIL@VIRGIL.com> - 2016-03-05 01:29 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-03-05 08:21 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Virgil <VIRGIL@VIRGIL.com> - 2016-03-05 12:50 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> - 2016-03-05 11:54 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love "Ted&Alice Street" <sam.tedesco@notgmail.c> - 2016-03-04 02:27 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-03-04 15:57 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love "Ted&Alice Street" <sam.tedesco@notgmail.c> - 2016-03-04 02:24 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-03-04 15:56 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Virgil <VIRGIL@VIRGIL.com> - 2016-03-03 15:25 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-03-03 17:35 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Apollo <nowhere@def.com> - 2016-03-03 22:41 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-03-04 07:40 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Virgil <VIRGIL@VIRGIL.com> - 2016-03-04 13:47 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-04 21:46 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-03-04 17:03 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Virgil <VIRGIL@VIRGIL.com> - 2016-03-04 16:26 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-03-04 18:45 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Virgil <VIRGIL@VIRGIL.com> - 2016-03-04 17:33 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-03-04 19:52 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Virgil <VIRGIL@VIRGIL.com> - 2016-03-04 21:23 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-03-05 00:21 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> - 2016-03-02 11:46 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Virgil <VIRGIL@VIRGIL.com> - 2016-03-02 12:11 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> - 2016-03-03 11:00 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-02 01:04 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-03-01 20:13 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Virgil <VIRGIL@VIRGIL.com> - 2016-03-01 15:57 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-03-01 20:34 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Wisely Non-Theist <aaa@bbb.ccc> - 2016-03-01 18:42 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> - 2016-02-28 11:28 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-02-28 19:10 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Wisely Non-Theist <aaa@bbb.ccc> - 2016-02-28 17:59 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-02-29 00:06 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-02-29 18:18 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-02-29 14:05 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-01 01:07 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-02-29 23:05 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love felix <me@nothere.invalid> - 2016-03-01 20:27 +1100
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-03-01 19:57 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-03-01 14:54 -0600
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-01 21:03 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> - 2016-02-29 10:35 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-02-29 12:43 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> - 2016-03-01 10:38 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-03-01 13:23 -0600
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> - 2016-03-02 11:27 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-03-02 13:21 -0600
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> - 2016-03-03 11:05 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-03-03 12:35 -0600
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> - 2016-03-04 10:38 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> - 2016-03-04 17:38 -0800
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> - 2016-03-05 12:13 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> - 2016-03-05 16:26 -0800
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> - 2016-03-06 11:00 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-03 19:36 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love mur@. - 2016-02-27 23:38 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love felix <me@nothere.invalid> - 2016-02-28 17:29 +1100
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love "Ted&Alice Street" <sam.tedesco@notgmail.c> - 2016-02-28 16:15 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love felix <me@nothere.invalid> - 2016-03-01 19:38 +1100
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love "Ted&Alice Street" <sam.tedesco@notgmail.c> - 2016-03-02 00:07 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Wisely Non-Theist <aaa@bbb.ccc> - 2016-03-01 18:53 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love "Ted&Alice Street" <sam.tedesco@notgmail.c> - 2016-03-03 00:20 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-03 00:47 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love "Ted&Alice Street" <sam.tedesco@notgmail.c> - 2016-03-03 23:57 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love "Ted&Alice Street" <sam.tedesco@notgmail.c> - 2016-03-03 23:58 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Wisely Non-Theist <aaa@bbb.ccc> - 2016-03-03 18:34 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-04 01:52 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love "Ted&Alice Street" <sam.tedesco@notgmail.c> - 2016-03-04 02:10 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Wisely Non-Theist <aaa@bbb.ccc> - 2016-03-03 23:02 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love "Ted&Alice Street" <sam.tedesco@notgmail.c> - 2016-03-04 21:48 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-04 01:49 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love "Ted&Alice Street" <sam.tedesco@notgmail.c> - 2016-03-04 02:12 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-04 02:28 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> - 2016-03-04 00:38 -0800
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-04 16:09 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love "%" <persent@gmail.com> - 2016-03-02 17:57 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love "Ted&Alice Street" <sam.tedesco@notgmail.c> - 2016-03-03 23:59 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love A Nony Mouse <abc@cef.ghi> - 2016-03-03 18:30 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> - 2016-03-03 12:26 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love "Ted&Alice Street" <sam.tedesco@notgmail.c> - 2016-03-04 00:00 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Wisely Non-Theist <aaa@bbb.ccc> - 2016-03-03 18:25 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love "Ted&Alice Street" <sam.tedesco@notgmail.c> - 2016-03-04 01:58 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> - 2016-03-04 11:48 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love "Ted&Alice Street" <sam.tedesco@notgmail.c> - 2016-03-04 21:56 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> - 2016-03-05 11:40 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love "Ted&Alice Street" <sam.tedesco@notgmail.c> - 2016-03-05 19:19 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love "%" <persent@gmail.com> - 2016-03-05 12:22 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love "Ted&Alice Street" <sam.tedesco@notgmail.c> - 2016-03-05 19:26 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love "%" <persent@gmail.com> - 2016-03-05 16:05 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love "Ted&Alice Street" <sam.tedesco@notgmail.c> - 2016-03-05 23:26 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love "%" <persent@gmail.com> - 2016-03-05 16:45 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love "Ted&Alice Street" <sam.tedesco@notgmail.c> - 2016-03-05 23:46 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love "%" <persent@gmail.com> - 2016-03-05 16:55 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love "Ted&Alice Street" <sam.tedesco@notgmail.c> - 2016-03-06 12:25 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-04 01:49 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love "Ted&Alice Street" <sam.tedesco@notgmail.c> - 2016-03-04 02:19 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-04 02:28 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love "Ted&Alice Street" <sam.tedesco@notgmail.c> - 2016-03-04 22:01 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> - 2016-03-04 11:42 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love "Ted&Alice Street" <sam.tedesco@notgmail.c> - 2016-03-04 22:06 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love mur@. - 2016-03-02 22:32 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Wisely Non-Theist <aaa@bbb.ccc> - 2016-03-03 01:26 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-03-03 08:51 -0600
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> - 2016-03-03 12:45 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love mur@. - 2016-03-03 21:25 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love mur@. - 2016-03-02 22:31 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love mur@. - 2016-02-23 21:39 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-02-24 17:00 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-02-24 11:12 -0600
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> - 2016-02-24 15:10 -0800
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-02-25 21:01 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love "Ted&Alice Street" <sam.tedesco@notgmail.c> - 2016-02-28 16:01 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love mur@. - 2016-02-25 23:00 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love mur@. - 2016-03-07 21:19 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love felix <me@nothere.invalid> - 2016-02-28 08:56 +1100
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-02-27 23:00 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-02-27 17:13 -0600
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love mur@. - 2016-02-27 23:38 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love felix <me@nothere.invalid> - 2016-02-28 17:19 +1100
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-02-28 19:11 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love mur@. - 2016-02-28 22:42 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Wisely Non-Theist <aaa@bbb.ccc> - 2016-02-28 21:33 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-02-28 23:56 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love mur@. - 2016-02-29 21:57 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-01 06:16 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love felix <me@nothere.invalid> - 2016-03-01 22:04 +1100
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love mur@. - 2016-03-01 21:28 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-02 05:41 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love mur@. - 2016-03-02 22:31 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-03 17:50 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love mur@. - 2016-03-03 21:25 -0500
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Leonard Leonard <l.a.radio@kfi.con> - 2016-03-01 06:57 -0800
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-02-29 22:58 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> - 2016-03-01 10:54 -0700
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-03-01 20:21 +0000
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> - 2016-02-27 19:13 -0800
Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a pussy forum you might love youngblood2949@gmail.com - 2015-12-22 22:52 -0800
Page 15 of 24 — ← Prev page 1 … 13 14 [15] 16 17 … 24 Next page →
| From | Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-04 01:40 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love |
| Message-ID | <977eio.b9u.17.1@news.alt.net> |
| In reply to | #109970 |
Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> wrote: > On 3/3/2016 2:14 PM, Alex W. wrote: >> On 03/03/2016 13:47, Robert Duncan wrote: >>> On 3/3/2016 8:02 AM, Alex W. wrote: >>>> On 02/03/2016 19:20, Robert Duncan wrote: >>>>> On 3/2/2016 3:09 AM, Wisely Non-Theist wrote: >>>>>> In article <nb5fs7$qk6$2@dont-email.me>, >>>>>> Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> wrote: <Snip> >>> You're the one with a lot of theological contortions, twisting and >>> distorting what has been accepted by millions of people for the last two >>> thousand years, and exaggerating with anthropomorphisms the sovereignty >>> of God, you lack understanding of the word "omnipotent". >> >> Argumentum ad populum. >> Just because lots of people believe in something does not make it true, >> nor does it confer credibility or legitimacy on the belief itself. > > No, you're wrong. > > I do not believe God exists, nor that the Bible is the Word of God > simply because most people are inclined to believe it, so the Appeal to > Popularity fallacy does not hold up in this case. So are you lying now, or were you lying when you posted: "The only claims I have made are that I believe God exists, and I believe the Bible is the Word of God." In your reply with ID Message-Id: <nba576$s06$1@dont-email.me> This is a case where either one statement is a lie or the other is a lie. Or maybe both a lies. <snip> > > See how that works? > > Good luck. > > <smirk> > > Liar or troll You could be both See how that works? What does the "word of god" tell you about liars? -- Yep it is me, and Carole believes adding 2+2 can sometimes equal 3 or 5, and getting wrong answers means you are thinking outside the box.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-03 21:03 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love |
| Message-ID | <nbaq7f$6k6$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #109992 |
On 3/3/2016 8:40 PM, Bob Officer wrote: > Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> wrote: >> On 3/3/2016 2:14 PM, Alex W. wrote: >>> On 03/03/2016 13:47, Robert Duncan wrote: >>>> On 3/3/2016 8:02 AM, Alex W. wrote: >>>>> On 02/03/2016 19:20, Robert Duncan wrote: >>>>>> On 3/2/2016 3:09 AM, Wisely Non-Theist wrote: >>>>>>> In article <nb5fs7$qk6$2@dont-email.me>, >>>>>>> Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> wrote: > <Snip> >>>> You're the one with a lot of theological contortions, twisting and >>>> distorting what has been accepted by millions of people for the last two >>>> thousand years, and exaggerating with anthropomorphisms the sovereignty >>>> of God, you lack understanding of the word "omnipotent". >>> >>> Argumentum ad populum. >>> Just because lots of people believe in something does not make it true, >>> nor does it confer credibility or legitimacy on the belief itself. >> >> No, you're wrong. >> >> I do not believe God exists, nor that the Bible is the Word of God >> simply because most people are inclined to believe it, so the Appeal to >> Popularity fallacy does not hold up in this case. > > So are you lying now, or were you lying when you posted: > "The only claims I have made are that I believe God exists, and I believe > the Bible is the Word of God." In your reply with ID Message-Id: > <nba576$s06$1@dont-email.me> Is English your second language?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-04 02:22 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love |
| Message-ID | <977h2f.pip.17.1@news.alt.net> |
| In reply to | #110001 |
Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> wrote: > On 3/3/2016 8:40 PM, Bob Officer wrote: >> Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> wrote: >>> On 3/3/2016 2:14 PM, Alex W. wrote: >>>> On 03/03/2016 13:47, Robert Duncan wrote: >>>>> On 3/3/2016 8:02 AM, Alex W. wrote: >>>>>> On 02/03/2016 19:20, Robert Duncan wrote: >>>>>>> On 3/2/2016 3:09 AM, Wisely Non-Theist wrote: >>>>>>>> In article <nb5fs7$qk6$2@dont-email.me>, >>>>>>>> Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> wrote: >> <Snip> >>>>> You're the one with a lot of theological contortions, twisting and >>>>> distorting what has been accepted by millions of people for the last two >>>>> thousand years, and exaggerating with anthropomorphisms the sovereignty >>>>> of God, you lack understanding of the word "omnipotent". >>>> >>>> Argumentum ad populum. >>>> Just because lots of people believe in something does not make it true, >>>> nor does it confer credibility or legitimacy on the belief itself. >>> >>> No, you're wrong. >>> >>> I do not believe God exists, nor that the Bible is the Word of God >> >> So are you lying now, or were you lying when you posted: >> "The only claims I have made are that I believe God exists, and I believe >> the Bible is the Word of God." In your reply with ID Message-Id: >> <nba576$s06$1@dont-email.me> > > Is English your second language? Would it change the fact the evidence shows you lied? -- Yep it is me, and Carole believes adding 2+2 can sometimes equal 3 or 5, and getting wrong answers means you are thinking outside the box.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-03 21:30 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love |
| Message-ID | <nbarpp$h90$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #110007 |
On 3/3/2016 9:22 PM, Bob Officer wrote: > Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> wrote: >> On 3/3/2016 8:40 PM, Bob Officer wrote: >>> Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> wrote: >>>> On 3/3/2016 2:14 PM, Alex W. wrote: >>>>> On 03/03/2016 13:47, Robert Duncan wrote: >>>>>> On 3/3/2016 8:02 AM, Alex W. wrote: >>>>>>> On 02/03/2016 19:20, Robert Duncan wrote: >>>>>>>> On 3/2/2016 3:09 AM, Wisely Non-Theist wrote: >>>>>>>>> In article <nb5fs7$qk6$2@dont-email.me>, >>>>>>>>> Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> wrote: >>> <Snip> >>>>>> You're the one with a lot of theological contortions, twisting and >>>>>> distorting what has been accepted by millions of people for the last two >>>>>> thousand years, and exaggerating with anthropomorphisms the sovereignty >>>>>> of God, you lack understanding of the word "omnipotent". >>>>> >>>>> Argumentum ad populum. >>>>> Just because lots of people believe in something does not make it true, >>>>> nor does it confer credibility or legitimacy on the belief itself. >>>> >>>> No, you're wrong. >>>> >>>> I do not believe God exists, nor that the Bible is the Word of God >>> >>> So are you lying now, or were you lying when you posted: >>> "The only claims I have made are that I believe God exists, and I believe >>> the Bible is the Word of God." In your reply with ID Message-Id: >>> <nba576$s06$1@dont-email.me> >> >> Is English your second language? > > Would it change the fact the evidence shows you lied? The evidence doesn't show that. "I do not believe God exists, nor that the Bible is the Word of God simply because most people are inclined to believe it, so the Appeal to Popularity fallacy does not hold up in this case." Because you snipped all but the first line above is evidence that you are dishonest and deceitful. But I'm not telling you anything you didn't already know, am I?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-04 02:38 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love |
| Message-ID | <977hvl.3pf.19.1@news.alt.net> |
| In reply to | #110017 |
Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> wrote: > On 3/3/2016 9:22 PM, Bob Officer wrote: >> Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> wrote: >>> On 3/3/2016 8:40 PM, Bob Officer wrote: >>>> Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> wrote: >>>>> On 3/3/2016 2:14 PM, Alex W. wrote: >>>>>> On 03/03/2016 13:47, Robert Duncan wrote: >>>>>>> On 3/3/2016 8:02 AM, Alex W. wrote: >>>>>>>> On 02/03/2016 19:20, Robert Duncan wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 3/2/2016 3:09 AM, Wisely Non-Theist wrote: >>>>>>>>>> In article <nb5fs7$qk6$2@dont-email.me>, >>>>>>>>>> Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> wrote: >>>> <Snip> >>>>>>> You're the one with a lot of theological contortions, twisting and >>>>>>> distorting what has been accepted by millions of people for the last two >>>>>>> thousand years, and exaggerating with anthropomorphisms the sovereignty >>>>>>> of God, you lack understanding of the word "omnipotent". >>>>>> >>>>>> Argumentum ad populum. >>>>>> Just because lots of people believe in something does not make it true, >>>>>> nor does it confer credibility or legitimacy on the belief itself. >>>>> >>>>> No, you're wrong. >>>>> >>>>> I do not believe God exists, nor that the Bible is the Word of God >>>> >>>> So are you lying now, or were you lying when you posted: >>>> "The only claims I have made are that I believe God exists, and I believe >>>> the Bible is the Word of God." In your reply with ID Message-Id: >>>> <nba576$s06$1@dont-email.me> >>> >>> Is English your second language? >> >> Would it change the fact the evidence shows you lied? > > The evidence doesn't show that. > > "I do not believe God exists, nor that the Bible is the Word of God > simply because most people are inclined to believe it, so the Appeal to > Popularity fallacy does not hold up in this case." Because what you are doing is simply lying. You misstate the fact of what appeal,to authority is when you did it. And so I showed the public just how you lie to yourself and others. > > Because you snipped all but the first line above is evidence that you > are dishonest and deceitful. It is not deceitful, it is called showing your own basic dishonesty. See how that works. I simply redefine my own acts as I wish. That is what you do in almost every message you post. > But I'm not telling you anything you didn't already know, am I? It seem hypocritical for you to be upset when I did the same thing you do all the time. -- Yep it is me, and Carole believes adding 2+2 can sometimes equal 3 or 5, and getting wrong answers means you are thinking outside the box.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-03 21:50 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love |
| Message-ID | <nbat0r$n8r$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #110018 |
On 3/3/2016 9:38 PM, Bob Officer wrote: > Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> wrote: >> On 3/3/2016 9:22 PM, Bob Officer wrote: >>> Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> wrote: >>>> On 3/3/2016 8:40 PM, Bob Officer wrote: >>>>> Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> wrote: >>>>>> On 3/3/2016 2:14 PM, Alex W. wrote: >>>>>>> On 03/03/2016 13:47, Robert Duncan wrote: >>>>>>>> On 3/3/2016 8:02 AM, Alex W. wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 02/03/2016 19:20, Robert Duncan wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 3/2/2016 3:09 AM, Wisely Non-Theist wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> In article <nb5fs7$qk6$2@dont-email.me>, >>>>>>>>>>> Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> wrote: >>>>> <Snip> >>>>>>>> You're the one with a lot of theological contortions, twisting and >>>>>>>> distorting what has been accepted by millions of people for the last two >>>>>>>> thousand years, and exaggerating with anthropomorphisms the sovereignty >>>>>>>> of God, you lack understanding of the word "omnipotent". >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Argumentum ad populum. >>>>>>> Just because lots of people believe in something does not make it true, >>>>>>> nor does it confer credibility or legitimacy on the belief itself. >>>>>> >>>>>> No, you're wrong. >>>>>> >>>>>> I do not believe God exists, nor that the Bible is the Word of God >>>>> >>>>> So are you lying now, or were you lying when you posted: >>>>> "The only claims I have made are that I believe God exists, and I believe >>>>> the Bible is the Word of God." In your reply with ID Message-Id: >>>>> <nba576$s06$1@dont-email.me> >>>> >>>> Is English your second language? >>> >>> Would it change the fact the evidence shows you lied? >> >> The evidence doesn't show that. >> >> "I do not believe God exists, nor that the Bible is the Word of God >> simply because most people are inclined to believe it, so the Appeal to >> Popularity fallacy does not hold up in this case." > > Because what you are doing is simply lying. You misstate the fact of what > appeal,to authority is when you did it. And so I showed the public just how > you lie to yourself and others. Those are three separate assertions made by you. Now you must prove each one individually, otherwise you are a liar. Let's see your proof. Where's your proof?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-04 05:46 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love |
| Message-ID | <977t14.464.19.1@news.alt.net> |
| In reply to | #110019 |
Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> wrote: > On 3/3/2016 9:38 PM, Bob Officer wrote: >> Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> wrote: >>> On 3/3/2016 9:22 PM, Bob Officer wrote: >>>> Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> wrote: >>>>> On 3/3/2016 8:40 PM, Bob Officer wrote: >>>>>> Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> wrote: >>>>>>> On 3/3/2016 2:14 PM, Alex W. wrote: >>>>>>>> On 03/03/2016 13:47, Robert Duncan wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 3/3/2016 8:02 AM, Alex W. wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 02/03/2016 19:20, Robert Duncan wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 3/2/2016 3:09 AM, Wisely Non-Theist wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> In article <nb5fs7$qk6$2@dont-email.me>, >>>>>>>>>>>> Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> wrote: >>>>>> <Snip> >>>>>>>>> You're the one with a lot of theological contortions, twisting and >>>>>>>>> distorting what has been accepted by millions of people for the last two >>>>>>>>> thousand years, and exaggerating with anthropomorphisms the sovereignty >>>>>>>>> of God, you lack understanding of the word "omnipotent". >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Argumentum ad populum. >>>>>>>> Just because lots of people believe in something does not make it true, >>>>>>>> nor does it confer credibility or legitimacy on the belief itself. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> No, you're wrong. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I do not believe God exists, nor that the Bible is the Word of God >>>>>> >>>>>> So are you lying now, or were you lying when you posted: >>>>>> "The only claims I have made are that I believe God exists, and I believe >>>>>> the Bible is the Word of God." In your reply with ID Message-Id: >>>>>> <nba576$s06$1@dont-email.me> >>>>> >>>>> Is English your second language? >>>> >>>> Would it change the fact the evidence shows you lied? >>> >>> The evidence doesn't show that. >>> >>> "I do not believe God exists, nor that the Bible is the Word of God >>> simply because most people are inclined to believe it, so the Appeal to >>> Popularity fallacy does not hold up in this case." >> >> Because what you are doing is simply lying. You misstate the fact of what >> appeal,to authority is when you did it. And so I showed the public just how >> you lie to yourself and others. > > Those are three separate assertions made by you. > > Now you must prove each one individually, otherwise you are a liar. > > Let's see your proof. Where's your proof? > > > > Already done. As the saying goes, you are hoisted by your own petard. -- Yep it is me, and Carole believes adding 2+2 can sometimes equal 3 or 5, and getting wrong answers means you are thinking outside the box.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Virgil <VIRGIL@VIRGIL.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-03 23:17 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love |
| Message-ID | <VIRGIL-BF393D.23170103032016@news.giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #110022 |
In article <977t14.464.19.1@news.alt.net>, Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> wrote: > As the saying goes, you are hoisted by your own petard. If I recall correctly Hamlet's saying went "Let it work; For 'tis the sport to have the enginer Hoist with his own petard, an't shall go hard But I will delve one yard below their mines And blow them at the moon." -- Virgil "Mit der Dummheit kampfen Gotter selbst vergebens." (Schiller)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-04 07:25 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love |
| Message-ID | <nbbuli$2u8$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #110022 |
On 3/4/2016 12:46 AM, Bob Officer wrote: > Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> wrote: >> On 3/3/2016 9:38 PM, Bob Officer wrote: >>> Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> wrote: >>>> On 3/3/2016 9:22 PM, Bob Officer wrote: >>>>> Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> wrote: >>>>>> On 3/3/2016 8:40 PM, Bob Officer wrote: >>>>>>> Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> On 3/3/2016 2:14 PM, Alex W. wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 03/03/2016 13:47, Robert Duncan wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 3/3/2016 8:02 AM, Alex W. wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 02/03/2016 19:20, Robert Duncan wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/2/2016 3:09 AM, Wisely Non-Theist wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> In article <nb5fs7$qk6$2@dont-email.me>, >>>>>>>>>>>>> Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> wrote: >>>>>>> <Snip> >>>>>>>>>> You're the one with a lot of theological contortions, twisting and >>>>>>>>>> distorting what has been accepted by millions of people for the last two >>>>>>>>>> thousand years, and exaggerating with anthropomorphisms the sovereignty >>>>>>>>>> of God, you lack understanding of the word "omnipotent". >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Argumentum ad populum. >>>>>>>>> Just because lots of people believe in something does not make it true, >>>>>>>>> nor does it confer credibility or legitimacy on the belief itself. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> No, you're wrong. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I do not believe God exists, nor that the Bible is the Word of God >>>>>>> >>>>>>> So are you lying now, or were you lying when you posted: >>>>>>> "The only claims I have made are that I believe God exists, and I believe >>>>>>> the Bible is the Word of God." In your reply with ID Message-Id: >>>>>>> <nba576$s06$1@dont-email.me> >>>>>> >>>>>> Is English your second language? >>>>> >>>>> Would it change the fact the evidence shows you lied? >>>> >>>> The evidence doesn't show that. >>>> >>>> "I do not believe God exists, nor that the Bible is the Word of God >>>> simply because most people are inclined to believe it, so the Appeal to >>>> Popularity fallacy does not hold up in this case." Because you snipped all but the first line above, and you snipped this part again in your last post, that is evidence that you are a dishonest and deceitful person. But I'm not telling you anything you didn't already know, am I? >>> Because what you are doing is simply lying. You misstate the fact of what >>> appeal,to authority is when you did it. And so I showed the public just how >>> you lie to yourself and others. >> >> Those are three separate assertions made by you. >> >> Now you must prove each one individually, otherwise you are a liar. >> >> Let's see your proof. Where's your proof? >> >> >> >> > > Already done. Well, let's just say I don't believe you. Let's just say I know you're lying. I mean, since I've already proved that you are a dishonest and deceitful person, that's strong evidence that you're lying to me now. And the only way you can be pardoned from that is by showing me what you consider to be proof for your three assertions. If you can not or will not do that, then I have no alternative but to declare you a liar, in front of the whole world. heh..heh You're welcome.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-04 16:09 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love |
| Message-ID | <9791hp.ns6.19.2@news.alt.net> |
| In reply to | #110028 |
Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> wrote: > On 3/4/2016 12:46 AM, Bob Officer wrote: >> Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> wrote: >>> On 3/3/2016 9:38 PM, Bob Officer wrote: >>>> Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> wrote: >>>>> On 3/3/2016 9:22 PM, Bob Officer wrote: >>>>>> Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> wrote: >>>>>>> On 3/3/2016 8:40 PM, Bob Officer wrote: >>>>>>>> Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 3/3/2016 2:14 PM, Alex W. wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 03/03/2016 13:47, Robert Duncan wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 3/3/2016 8:02 AM, Alex W. wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 02/03/2016 19:20, Robert Duncan wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/2/2016 3:09 AM, Wisely Non-Theist wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> In article <nb5fs7$qk6$2@dont-email.me>, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> <Snip> >>>>>>>>>>> You're the one with a lot of theological contortions, twisting and >>>>>>>>>>> distorting what has been accepted by millions of people for the last two >>>>>>>>>>> thousand years, and exaggerating with anthropomorphisms the sovereignty >>>>>>>>>>> of God, you lack understanding of the word "omnipotent". >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Argumentum ad populum. >>>>>>>>>> Just because lots of people believe in something does not make it true, >>>>>>>>>> nor does it confer credibility or legitimacy on the belief itself. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> No, you're wrong. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I do not believe God exists, nor that the Bible is the Word of God >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> So are you lying now, or were you lying when you posted: >>>>>>>> "The only claims I have made are that I believe God exists, and I believe >>>>>>>> the Bible is the Word of God." In your reply with ID Message-Id: >>>>>>>> <nba576$s06$1@dont-email.me> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Is English your second language? >>>>>> >>>>>> Would it change the fact the evidence shows you lied? >>>>> >>>>> The evidence doesn't show that. >>>>> >>>>> "I do not believe God exists, nor that the Bible is the Word of God >>>>> simply because most people are inclined to believe it, so the Appeal to >>>>> Popularity fallacy does not hold up in this case." > > > > > Because you snipped all but the first line above, and you snipped this > part again in your last post, that is evidence that you are a dishonest > and deceitful person. > > But I'm not telling you anything you didn't already know, am I? > > > > > >>>> Because what you are doing is simply lying. You misstate the fact of what >>>> appeal,to authority is when you did it. And so I showed the public just how >>>> you lie to yourself and others. >>> >>> Those are three separate assertions made by you. >>> >>> Now you must prove each one individually, otherwise you are a liar. >>> >>> Let's see your proof. Where's your proof? >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> Already done. > > Well, let's just say I don't believe you. much like all religions, any post hoc declaration is the same as the next one. > > Let's just say I know you're lying. You have mind reading skills? > I mean, since I've already proved that you are a dishonest and deceitful > person, that's strong evidence that you're lying to me now. However if I show you lies in the bible, you ignore them, right? > And the only way you can be pardoned from that is by showing me what > you consider to be proof for your three assertions. > > If you can not or will not do that, then I have no alternative > but to declare you a liar, in front of the whole world. > > heh..heh > > You're welcome. > > > You provided the chance for this exercise to show how you faith really works. It also allow me to show how you behave like a child. Your act is over leave the stage. -- Yep it is me, and Carole believes adding 2+2 can sometimes equal 3 or 5, and getting wrong answers means you are thinking outside the box.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-04 12:45 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love |
| Message-ID | <nbcheo$e9k$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #110036 |
On 3/4/2016 11:09 AM, Bob Officer wrote: > Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> wrote: >> On 3/4/2016 12:46 AM, Bob Officer wrote: >>> Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> wrote: >>>> On 3/3/2016 9:38 PM, Bob Officer wrote: >>>>> Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> wrote: >>>>>> On 3/3/2016 9:22 PM, Bob Officer wrote: >>>>>>> Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> On 3/3/2016 8:40 PM, Bob Officer wrote: >>>>>>>>> Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 3/3/2016 2:14 PM, Alex W. wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 03/03/2016 13:47, Robert Duncan wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/3/2016 8:02 AM, Alex W. wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 02/03/2016 19:20, Robert Duncan wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/2/2016 3:09 AM, Wisely Non-Theist wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In article <nb5fs7$qk6$2@dont-email.me>, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>> <Snip> >>>>>>>>>>>> You're the one with a lot of theological contortions, twisting and >>>>>>>>>>>> distorting what has been accepted by millions of people for the last two >>>>>>>>>>>> thousand years, and exaggerating with anthropomorphisms the sovereignty >>>>>>>>>>>> of God, you lack understanding of the word "omnipotent". >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Argumentum ad populum. >>>>>>>>>>> Just because lots of people believe in something does not make it true, >>>>>>>>>>> nor does it confer credibility or legitimacy on the belief itself. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> No, you're wrong. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I do not believe God exists, nor that the Bible is the Word of God >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> So are you lying now, or were you lying when you posted: >>>>>>>>> "The only claims I have made are that I believe God exists, and I believe >>>>>>>>> the Bible is the Word of God." In your reply with ID Message-Id: >>>>>>>>> <nba576$s06$1@dont-email.me> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Is English your second language? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Would it change the fact the evidence shows you lied? >>>>>> >>>>>> The evidence doesn't show that. >>>>>> >>>>>> "I do not believe God exists, nor that the Bible is the Word of God >>>>>> simply because most people are inclined to believe it, so the Appeal to >>>>>> Popularity fallacy does not hold up in this case." >> >> >> >> >> Because you snipped all but the first line above, and you snipped this >> part again in your last post, that is evidence that you are a dishonest >> and deceitful person. >> >> But I'm not telling you anything you didn't already know, am I? >> >> >> >> >> >>>>> Because what you are doing is simply lying. You misstate the fact of what >>>>> appeal,to authority is when you did it. And so I showed the public just how >>>>> you lie to yourself and others. >>>> >>>> Those are three separate assertions made by you. >>>> >>>> Now you must prove each one individually, otherwise you are a liar. >>>> >>>> Let's see your proof. Where's your proof? >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> Already done. >> >> Well, let's just say I don't believe you. > > much like all religions, any post hoc declaration is the same as the next > one. >> >> Let's just say I know you're lying. > > You have mind reading skills? > > >> I mean, since I've already proved that you are a dishonest and deceitful >> person, that's strong evidence that you're lying to me now. > > However if I show you lies in the bible, you ignore them, right? > >> And the only way you can be pardoned from that is by showing me what >> you consider to be proof for your three assertions. >> >> If you can not or will not do that, then I have no alternative >> but to declare you a liar, in front of the whole world. >> >> heh..heh >> >> You're welcome. >> >> >> > > You provided the chance for this exercise to show how you faith really > works. It also allow me to show how you behave like a child. > > Your act is over leave the stage. Yeah, now that I've got you backed into a corner, you want me to leave. That's typical behavior from a dishonest and deceitful person. But I'll leave when I'm ready to leave. Until then you just stay in that corner and keep your mouth shut. You got that?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Virgil <VIRGIL@VIRGIL.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-04 14:12 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love |
| Message-ID | <VIRGIL-4D1CEA.14122304032016@news.giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #110036 |
In article <9791hp.ns6.19.2@news.alt.net>, Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> wrote: > You provided the chance for this exercise to show how you faith really > works. The problem is that there are so many of those of equal faith who claim that you are the one who is wrong and that they are right. If faith were enough to guarantee being right, why are there so many mutually incompatible faiths extant? Faith clearly is not enough to guarantee fact, or there would not be different faiths claiming different facts. So some of us, quite justifiably, regard faith alone as insufficient to guarantee the truth of your claims. But you offer nothing any more reliable. -- Virgil "Mit der Dummheit kampfen Gotter selbst vergebens." (Schiller)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-04 17:15 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love |
| Message-ID | <nbd17p$f7i$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #110053 |
On 3/4/2016 4:12 PM, Virgil wrote: > In article <9791hp.ns6.19.2@news.alt.net>, > Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> wrote: > >> You provided the chance for this exercise to show how you faith really >> works. > > The problem is that there are so many of those of equal faith who claim > that you are the one who is wrong and that they are right. > > If faith were enough to guarantee being right, why are there so many > mutually incompatible faiths extant? One word: Satan. > Faith clearly is not enough to guarantee fact, or there would not be > different faiths claiming different facts. But there's only one faith that gives it's adherents the internal evidence needed to ignore all the rest. > So some of us, quite justifiably, regard faith alone as insufficient to > guarantee the truth of your claims. It would be if faith was the result of regeneration, and not vice versa. > But you offer nothing any more reliable.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Virgil <VIRGIL@VIRGIL.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-04 16:12 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love |
| Message-ID | <VIRGIL-4B9571.16124004032016@news.giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #110068 |
In article <nbd17p$f7i$1@dont-email.me>, Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> wrote: > On 3/4/2016 4:12 PM, Virgil wrote: > > Faith clearly is not enough to guarantee fact, or there would not be > > different faiths claiming different facts. > > But there's only one faith that gives it's adherents the internal > evidence needed to ignore all the rest. Each religion, or sect within a religion, claims that. But none of them deliver on that claim. > > > > So some of us, quite justifiably, regard faith alone as insufficient to > > guarantee the truth of your claims. > > It would be if faith was the result of regeneration Such faith, properly, should only be the result of incontrovertible evidence, which yours is not, since every other religion has as much! -- Virgil "Mit der Dummheit kampfen Gotter selbst vergebens." (Schiller)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-04 18:17 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love |
| Message-ID | <nbd4sq$hu$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #110073 |
On 3/4/2016 6:12 PM, Virgil wrote: > In article <nbd17p$f7i$1@dont-email.me>, > Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> wrote: > >> On 3/4/2016 4:12 PM, Virgil wrote: > >>> Faith clearly is not enough to guarantee fact, or there would not be >>> different faiths claiming different facts. >> >> But there's only one faith that gives it's adherents the internal >> evidence needed to ignore all the rest. > > Each religion, or sect within a religion, claims that. But none of them > deliver on that claim. That's just your unsupported opinion. Regenerated Christians know your opinion is not true. >> >> >>> So some of us, quite justifiably, regard faith alone as insufficient to >>> guarantee the truth of your claims. >> >> It would be if faith was the result of regeneration, and not vice versa. > > Such faith, properly, should only be the result of incontrovertible > evidence, which yours is not, since every other religion has as much! You don't know that. You're just hoping your unsupported guesses are correct. I know they're not. See how that works?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Virgil <VIRGIL@VIRGIL.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-04 20:48 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love |
| Message-ID | <VIRGIL-0F870B.20485104032016@news.giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #110077 |
In article <nbd4sq$hu$1@dont-email.me>, Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> wrote: > On 3/4/2016 6:12 PM, Virgil wrote: > > In article <nbd17p$f7i$1@dont-email.me>, > > Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> wrote: > > > >> On 3/4/2016 4:12 PM, Virgil wrote: > > > >>> Faith clearly is not enough to guarantee fact, or there would not be > >>> different faiths claiming different facts. > >> > >> But there's only one faith that gives it's adherents the internal > >> evidence needed to ignore all the rest. > > > > Each religion, or sect within a religion, claims that. But none of them > > deliver on that claim. > > That's just your unsupported opinion. > Regenerated Christians know your opinion is not true. > > >> > >> > >>> So some of us, quite justifiably, regard faith alone as insufficient to > >>> guarantee the truth of your claims. > >> > >> It would be if faith was the result of regeneration, and not vice versa. > > > > Such faith, properly, should only be the result of incontrovertible > > evidence, which yours is not, since every other religion has as much! > > You don't know that. Why would they lie? -- Virgil "Mit der Dummheit kampfen Gotter selbst vergebens." (Schiller)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-04 23:56 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love |
| Message-ID | <nbdoo8$lt$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #110093 |
On 3/4/2016 10:48 PM, Virgil wrote: > In article <nbd4sq$hu$1@dont-email.me>, > Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> wrote: > >> On 3/4/2016 6:12 PM, Virgil wrote: >>> In article <nbd17p$f7i$1@dont-email.me>, >>> Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> wrote: >>> >>>> On 3/4/2016 4:12 PM, Virgil wrote: >>> >>>>> Faith clearly is not enough to guarantee fact, or there would not be >>>>> different faiths claiming different facts. >>>> >>>> But there's only one faith that gives it's adherents the internal >>>> evidence needed to ignore all the rest. >>> >>> Each religion, or sect within a religion, claims that. But none of them >>> deliver on that claim. >> >> That's just your unsupported opinion. >> Regenerated Christians know your opinion is not true. >> >>>> >>>> >>>>> So some of us, quite justifiably, regard faith alone as insufficient to >>>>> guarantee the truth of your claims. >>>> >>>> It would be if faith was the result of regeneration, and not vice versa. >>> >>> Such faith, properly, should only be the result of incontrovertible >>> evidence, which yours is not, since every other religion has as much! >> >> You don't know that. > > Why would they lie? You're just all talk. Let's see you prove I'm lying.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Virgil <VIRGIL@VIRGIL.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-04 22:17 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love |
| Message-ID | <VIRGIL-77AF9C.22175304032016@news.giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #110102 |
In article <nbdoo8$lt$1@dont-email.me>, Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> wrote: > On 3/4/2016 10:48 PM, Virgil wrote: > > In article <nbd4sq$hu$1@dont-email.me>, > > Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> wrote: > > > >> On 3/4/2016 6:12 PM, Virgil wrote: > >>> In article <nbd17p$f7i$1@dont-email.me>, > >>> Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> wrote: > >>> > >>>> On 3/4/2016 4:12 PM, Virgil wrote: > >>> > >>>>> Faith clearly is not enough to guarantee fact, or there would not be > >>>>> different faiths claiming different facts. > >>>> > >>>> But there's only one faith that gives it's adherents the internal > >>>> evidence needed to ignore all the rest. > >>> > >>> Each religion, or sect within a religion, claims that. But none of them > >>> deliver on that claim. > >> > >> That's just your unsupported opinion. > >> Regenerated Christians know your opinion is not true. > >> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>> So some of us, quite justifiably, regard faith alone as insufficient to > >>>>> guarantee the truth of your claims. > >>>> > >>>> It would be if faith was the result of regeneration, and not vice versa. > >>> > >>> Such faith, properly, should only be the result of incontrovertible > >>> evidence, which yours is not, since every other religion has as much! > >> > >> You don't know that. > > > > Why would they lie? > > You're just all talk. > > Let's see you prove I'm lying. I don't have to prove you are lying, it is you who have to prove that yu are telling the truth, which you have not yet been able to do, and will not ever be able to do re your religious claims. -- Virgil "Mit der Dummheit kampfen Gotter selbst vergebens." (Schiller)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-05 00:35 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love |
| Message-ID | <nbdr7t$16d$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #110104 |
On 3/5/2016 12:17 AM, Virgil wrote: > In article <nbdoo8$lt$1@dont-email.me>, > Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> wrote: > >> On 3/4/2016 10:48 PM, Virgil wrote: >>> In article <nbd4sq$hu$1@dont-email.me>, >>> Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> wrote: >>> >>>> On 3/4/2016 6:12 PM, Virgil wrote: >>>>> In article <nbd17p$f7i$1@dont-email.me>, >>>>> Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On 3/4/2016 4:12 PM, Virgil wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>> Faith clearly is not enough to guarantee fact, or there would not be >>>>>>> different faiths claiming different facts. >>>>>> >>>>>> But there's only one faith that gives it's adherents the internal >>>>>> evidence needed to ignore all the rest. >>>>> >>>>> Each religion, or sect within a religion, claims that. But none of them >>>>> deliver on that claim. >>>> >>>> That's just your unsupported opinion. >>>> Regenerated Christians know your opinion is not true. >>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> So some of us, quite justifiably, regard faith alone as insufficient to >>>>>>> guarantee the truth of your claims. >>>>>> >>>>>> It would be if faith was the result of regeneration, and not vice versa. >>>>> >>>>> Such faith, properly, should only be the result of incontrovertible >>>>> evidence, which yours is not, since every other religion has as much! >>>> >>>> You don't know that. >>> >>> Why would they lie? >> >> You're just all talk. >> >> Let's see you prove I'm lying. > > I don't have to prove you are lying, it is you who have to prove that yu > are telling the truth. Not when all I'm doing is expressing religious beliefs. You said I did not have "incontrovertible evidence". Let's see you prove it. If you can't, then you was lying, and you're a liar.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Virgil <VIRGIL@VIRGIL.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-05 01:40 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love |
| Message-ID | <VIRGIL-801503.01405005032016@news.giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #110110 |
In article <nbdr7t$16d$1@gioia.aioe.org>, Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> wrote: > On 3/5/2016 12:17 AM, Virgil wrote: > > In article <nbdoo8$lt$1@dont-email.me>, > > Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> wrote: > > > >> On 3/4/2016 10:48 PM, Virgil wrote: > >>> In article <nbd4sq$hu$1@dont-email.me>, > >>> Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> wrote: > >>> > >>>> On 3/4/2016 6:12 PM, Virgil wrote: > >>>>> In article <nbd17p$f7i$1@dont-email.me>, > >>>>> Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>>> On 3/4/2016 4:12 PM, Virgil wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>>>> Faith clearly is not enough to guarantee fact, or there would > >>>>>>> not be different faiths claiming different facts. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> But there's only one faith that gives it's adherents the > >>>>>> internal evidence needed to ignore all the rest. > >>>>> > >>>>> Each religion, or sect within a religion, claims that. But none > >>>>> of them deliver on that claim. > >>>> > >>>> That's just your unsupported opinion. Regenerated Christians > >>>> know your opinion is not true. > >>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> So some of us, quite justifiably, regard faith alone as > >>>>>>> insufficient to guarantee the truth of your claims. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> It would be if faith was the result of regeneration, and not > >>>>>> vice versa. > >>>>> > >>>>> Such faith, properly, should only be the result of > >>>>> incontrovertible evidence, which yours is not, since every > >>>>> other religion has as much! > >>>> > >>>> You don't know that. > >>> > >>> Why would they lie? > >> > >> You're just all talk. > >> > >> Let's see you prove I'm lying. > > > > I don't have to prove you are lying, it is you who have to prove > > that you are telling the truth. > > Not when all I'm doing is expressing religious beliefs. Especially then! > > You said I did not have "incontrovertible evidence". > > Let's see you prove it. The only form of "incontrovertible evidence" are observations of the result of physical experimentation done in such a way that anyone else can duplicate the experiment and verify that the same results occur. > > If you can't, then you was lying, and you're a liar. Can you describe any such physical experiment whose result will always verify the existence of your alleged god? -- Virgil "Mit der Dummheit kampfen Gotter selbst vergebens." (Schiller)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 15 of 24 — ← Prev page 1 … 13 14 [15] 16 17 … 24 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.skeptic
csiph-web