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 9 of 24 — ← Prev page 1 … 7 8 [9] 10 11 … 24 Next page →
| From | Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-01 20:59 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love |
| Message-ID | <971ldd.ruj.19.1@news.alt.net> |
| In reply to | #109874 |
Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> wrote: > On 3/1/2016 4:35 AM, Jeanne Douglas wrote: >> In article <djl5dgF4fltU1@mid.individual.net>, >> felix <me@nothere.invalid> wrote: >> >>> On 29-February-2016 7:49 AM, Robert Duncan wrote: >>>> On 2/28/2016 3:39 PM, Wisely Non-Theist wrote: >>>>> In article <96s7aj.9nv.19.2@news.alt.net>, >>>>> "Ted&Alice Street" <sam.tedesco@notgmail.c> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> his (apparent) inability to comprehend the most simple things >>>>>>> is >> >> staggering. to suggest that 'there is/are no (whatever)" is >>>>>>> not a >> belief >> is just crazy. >>>>>>>>>> But almost none of us have any such belief. >>>>>>>>> You may not call it a belief >>>>> When someone does NOT believe in something, some of us call that an >>>>> absence of belief! >>>> You can "call" it whatever you want to call it. >>>> >>>> We know what you are really saying when you say "I have an absence of >>>> belief in God". >>>> >>>> It's not that difficult. >>> >>> indeed it isn't. atheists complicate the matter to attempt to justify a >>> 'no God' position. they seem to think that if they claim that God does >>> not exist, they're admitting that there is a God. they seem to want to >>> be able to assert that God does not exist without saying so. (if that >>> makes any sense) >> >> No, it makes absolutely no sense at all. >> >> We have never seen any evidence for your god, so it would be illogical >> (and stupid) to believe it exists. Period. >> >> If some day we are given actual evidence, we will re-evaluate and, if >> the evidence is verified, we will acknowledge that your god exists. > > No you wouldn't. > > "And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled only to those who are > perishing. In their case the god of this world has blinded the minds of > the unbelievers, to keep them from seeing the light of the gospel of the > glory of Christ, who is the image of God." > (2 Corinthians 4:3-4) Fallacy of circular references > You are being actively kept from believing. > God doesn't want you to believe. Contradictory to several of the same source of references. > "So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever > he wills." > (Romans 9:18) > > God has already made sure you will not believe. Contradictory to the teachings of the bible, book of Hebrew and Christian myths. > >> But very few of us would actually worship that monster you worship. > > I know. I also know that you think of him as a "monster" because he > wants you to think of him as a monster. > > "With the purified you show yourself pure; > and with the wicked you make yourself seem tortuous." > (Psalm 18:26) If God doesn't exist the him to which you are referring is an nonexistent as the voices in a schizophrenic head. > Now, having said all that, I can give evidence that God exists, and the > Bible is true, in just one word. > > And you can evaluate and verify it all you want. > > However, I already know, and I'm as sure of it as I am sure of my own > name, you will never consider it as evidence. The sun will rise in the > west before you will ever even think of accepting it as evidence. > > But, you're not the only person who will ever read this post, are you? > > Anyway, the one word is "Israel". > > The nation Israel in their own land, promised to them in the Bible, by God. > > Now, please do not take that in any way as though I'm trying to > "convert" you, or "proselytize" you. Okay? > > After what I wrote just above, anyone with half a brain knows that's not > what > I'm doing. > > I'm doing it to prove 2 Corinthians 4:3-4, Romans 9:18, and several > other verses in the Bible I have not mentioned, are all true. And you're > my little guinea pig. > > So, thanks for taking part in this experiment. I really do appreciate it. > > -rd You are batting zero in a game what evidence alone counts. Without evidence all you do is strike out with every swing. Take a good class in logic and make sure it covers the fallacy of self reference. One can not use a book of myths to valid the myths. Myths are not evidence, a book of myths can not be evidence of the myth's validity. When you use the any book of myths to validate your own god, you just equally created self validation for every other book of myths. Nothing like shooting yourself in the logical foot. Sorry you don't even get a consolation prize. -- 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 | 2016-03-01 16:06 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love |
| Message-ID | <nb503m$2ed$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #109877 |
On 3/1/2016 3:59 PM, Bob Officer wrote: > Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> wrote: >> On 3/1/2016 4:35 AM, Jeanne Douglas wrote: >>> In article <djl5dgF4fltU1@mid.individual.net>, >>> felix <me@nothere.invalid> wrote: >>> >>>> On 29-February-2016 7:49 AM, Robert Duncan wrote: >>>>> On 2/28/2016 3:39 PM, Wisely Non-Theist wrote: >>>>>> In article <96s7aj.9nv.19.2@news.alt.net>, >>>>>> "Ted&Alice Street" <sam.tedesco@notgmail.c> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> his (apparent) inability to comprehend the most simple things >>>>>>>> is >> >> staggering. to suggest that 'there is/are no (whatever)" is >>>>>>>> not a >> belief >> is just crazy. >>>>>>>>>>> But almost none of us have any such belief. >>>>>>>>>> You may not call it a belief >>>>>> When someone does NOT believe in something, some of us call that an >>>>>> absence of belief! >>>>> You can "call" it whatever you want to call it. >>>>> >>>>> We know what you are really saying when you say "I have an absence of >>>>> belief in God". >>>>> >>>>> It's not that difficult. >>>> >>>> indeed it isn't. atheists complicate the matter to attempt to justify a >>>> 'no God' position. they seem to think that if they claim that God does >>>> not exist, they're admitting that there is a God. they seem to want to >>>> be able to assert that God does not exist without saying so. (if that >>>> makes any sense) >>> >>> No, it makes absolutely no sense at all. >>> >>> We have never seen any evidence for your god, so it would be illogical >>> (and stupid) to believe it exists. Period. >>> >>> If some day we are given actual evidence, we will re-evaluate and, if >>> the evidence is verified, we will acknowledge that your god exists. >> >> No you wouldn't. >> >> "And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled only to those who are >> perishing. In their case the god of this world has blinded the minds of >> the unbelievers, to keep them from seeing the light of the gospel of the >> glory of Christ, who is the image of God." >> (2 Corinthians 4:3-4) > > > Fallacy of circular references Thank-you for participating. > >> You are being actively kept from believing. >> God doesn't want you to believe. > > Contradictory to several of the same source of references. Thank-you for participating. > >> "So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever >> he wills." >> (Romans 9:18) >> >> God has already made sure you will not believe. > > Contradictory to the teachings of the bible, book of Hebrew and Christian > myths. Cite? > >> >>> But very few of us would actually worship that monster you worship. >> >> I know. I also know that you think of him as a "monster" because he >> wants you to think of him as a monster. >> >> "With the purified you show yourself pure; >> and with the wicked you make yourself seem tortuous." >> (Psalm 18:26) > > If God doesn't exist the him to which you are referring is an nonexistent > as the voices in a schizophrenic head. Thank-you for participating. >> Now, having said all that, I can give evidence that God exists, and the >> Bible is true, in just one word. >> >> And you can evaluate and verify it all you want. >> >> However, I already know, and I'm as sure of it as I am sure of my own >> name, you will never consider it as evidence. The sun will rise in the >> west before you will ever even think of accepting it as evidence. >> >> But, you're not the only person who will ever read this post, are you? >> >> Anyway, the one word is "Israel". >> >> The nation Israel in their own land, promised to them in the Bible, by God. >> >> Now, please do not take that in any way as though I'm trying to >> "convert" you, or "proselytize" you. Okay? >> >> After what I wrote just above, anyone with half a brain knows that's not >> what >> I'm doing. >> >> I'm doing it to prove 2 Corinthians 4:3-4, Romans 9:18, and several >> other verses in the Bible I have not mentioned, are all true. And you're >> my little guinea pig. >> >> So, thanks for taking part in this experiment. I really do appreciate it. >> >> -rd > > You are batting zero in a game what evidence alone counts. Without evidence > all you do is strike out with every swing. > > Take a good class in logic and make sure it covers the fallacy of self > reference. Thank-you for participating. > One can not use a book of myths to valid the myths. Myths are not evidence, > a book of myths can not be evidence of the myth's validity. Unsubstantiated opinion noted, and duly dismissed. > When you use the any book of myths to validate your own god, you just > equally created self validation for every other book of myths. Unsubstantiated opinion noted, and duly dismissed. > Nothing like shooting yourself in the logical foot. > > Sorry you don't even get a consolation prize. Thank-you for participating.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-01 22:20 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love |
| Message-ID | <971q57.ng4.19.1@news.alt.net> |
| In reply to | #109879 |
Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> wrote: > On 3/1/2016 3:59 PM, Bob Officer wrote: >> Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> wrote: >>> On 3/1/2016 4:35 AM, Jeanne Douglas wrote: >>>> In article <djl5dgF4fltU1@mid.individual.net>, >>>> felix <me@nothere.invalid> wrote: >>>> >>>>> On 29-February-2016 7:49 AM, Robert Duncan wrote: >>>>>> On 2/28/2016 3:39 PM, Wisely Non-Theist wrote: >>>>>>> In article <96s7aj.9nv.19.2@news.alt.net>, >>>>>>> "Ted&Alice Street" <sam.tedesco@notgmail.c> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> his (apparent) inability to comprehend the most simple things >>>>>>>>> is >> >> staggering. to suggest that 'there is/are no (whatever)" is >>>>>>>>> not a >> belief >> is just crazy. >>>>>>>>>>>> But almost none of us have any such belief. >>>>>>>>>>> You may not call it a belief >>>>>>> When someone does NOT believe in something, some of us call that an >>>>>>> absence of belief! >>>>>> You can "call" it whatever you want to call it. >>>>>> >>>>>> We know what you are really saying when you say "I have an absence of >>>>>> belief in God". >>>>>> >>>>>> It's not that difficult. >>>>> >>>>> indeed it isn't. atheists complicate the matter to attempt to justify a >>>>> 'no God' position. they seem to think that if they claim that God does >>>>> not exist, they're admitting that there is a God. they seem to want to >>>>> be able to assert that God does not exist without saying so. (if that >>>>> makes any sense) >>>> >>>> No, it makes absolutely no sense at all. >>>> >>>> We have never seen any evidence for your god, so it would be illogical >>>> (and stupid) to believe it exists. Period. >>>> >>>> If some day we are given actual evidence, we will re-evaluate and, if >>>> the evidence is verified, we will acknowledge that your god exists. >>> >>> No you wouldn't. >>> >>> "And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled only to those who are >>> perishing. In their case the god of this world has blinded the minds of >>> the unbelievers, to keep them from seeing the light of the gospel of the >>> glory of Christ, who is the image of God." >>> (2 Corinthians 4:3-4) >> >> >> Fallacy of circular references > > Thank-you for participating. > >> >>> You are being actively kept from believing. >>> God doesn't want you to believe. >> >> Contradictory to several of the same source of references. > > Thank-you for participating. > >> >>> "So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever >>> he wills." >>> (Romans 9:18) >>> >>> God has already made sure you will not believe. >> >> Contradictory to the teachings of the bible, book of Hebrew and Christian >> myths. > > Cite? You mean you don't know your book of myths as well as I do? I bet you pray in public. >> >>> >>>> But very few of us would actually worship that monster you worship. >>> >>> I know. I also know that you think of him as a "monster" because he >>> wants you to think of him as a monster. >>> >>> "With the purified you show yourself pure; >>> and with the wicked you make yourself seem tortuous." >>> (Psalm 18:26) >> >> If God doesn't exist the him to which you are referring is an nonexistent >> as the voices in a schizophrenic head. > > Thank-you for participating. Well isn't that new? Do you Place your fingers in your ears and chant la-la-la, too? >>> Now, having said all that, I can give evidence that God exists, and the >>> Bible is true, in just one word. >>> >>> And you can evaluate and verify it all you want. >>> >>> However, I already know, and I'm as sure of it as I am sure of my own >>> name, you will never consider it as evidence. The sun will rise in the >>> west before you will ever even think of accepting it as evidence. >>> >>> But, you're not the only person who will ever read this post, are you? >>> >>> Anyway, the one word is "Israel". >>> >>> The nation Israel in their own land, promised to them in the Bible, by God. >>> >>> Now, please do not take that in any way as though I'm trying to >>> "convert" you, or "proselytize" you. Okay? >>> >>> After what I wrote just above, anyone with half a brain knows that's not >>> what >>> I'm doing. >>> >>> I'm doing it to prove 2 Corinthians 4:3-4, Romans 9:18, and several >>> other verses in the Bible I have not mentioned, are all true. And you're >>> my little guinea pig. >>> >>> So, thanks for taking part in this experiment. I really do appreciate it. >>> >>> -rd >> >> You are batting zero in a game what evidence alone counts. Without evidence >> all you do is strike out with every swing. >> >> Take a good class in logic and make sure it covers the fallacy of self >> reference. > > Thank-you for participating. I sure his fingers were in his ears... It is almost comical, if he wasn't an adult. >> One can not use a book of myths to valid the myths. Myths are not evidence, >> a book of myths can not be evidence of the myth's validity. > > Unsubstantiated opinion noted, and duly dismissed. It is called logic. Any adult practicing critical thinking understands you can not point to a book devoid of evidence to prove it is valid. The book of myths you are pointing at has exactly the same degree of validity. By you logic a book about Nordic myth is all the evidence we need to follow that set of myths. > >> When you use the any book of myths to validate your own god, you just >> equally created self validation for every other book of myths. > > Unsubstantiated opinion noted, and duly dismissed. Logic is not your friend. Maybe using a book of Greek myths, validates all the pantheon of Greek gods as equally well as your own book of myths. >> Nothing like shooting yourself in the logical foot. >> >> Sorry you don't even get a consolation prize. > > Thank-you for participating. I expected nothing more from you than your fingers in your ears. This is much the same result as our last encounter a few years back. You lost as badly then. -- 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 | 2016-03-01 20:26 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love |
| Message-ID | <nb5fa1$pcu$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #109880 |
On 3/1/2016 5:20 PM, Bob Officer wrote: > Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> wrote: >> On 3/1/2016 3:59 PM, Bob Officer wrote: >>> Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> wrote: >>>> On 3/1/2016 4:35 AM, Jeanne Douglas wrote: >>>>> In article <djl5dgF4fltU1@mid.individual.net>, >>>>> felix <me@nothere.invalid> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On 29-February-2016 7:49 AM, Robert Duncan wrote: >>>>>>> On 2/28/2016 3:39 PM, Wisely Non-Theist wrote: >>>>>>>> In article <96s7aj.9nv.19.2@news.alt.net>, >>>>>>>> "Ted&Alice Street" <sam.tedesco@notgmail.c> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> his (apparent) inability to comprehend the most simple things >>>>>>>>>> is >> >> staggering. to suggest that 'there is/are no (whatever)" is >>>>>>>>>> not a >> belief >> is just crazy. >>>>>>>>>>>>> But almost none of us have any such belief. >>>>>>>>>>>> You may not call it a belief >>>>>>>> When someone does NOT believe in something, some of us call that an >>>>>>>> absence of belief! >>>>>>> You can "call" it whatever you want to call it. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> We know what you are really saying when you say "I have an absence of >>>>>>> belief in God". >>>>>>> >>>>>>> It's not that difficult. >>>>>> >>>>>> indeed it isn't. atheists complicate the matter to attempt to justify a >>>>>> 'no God' position. they seem to think that if they claim that God does >>>>>> not exist, they're admitting that there is a God. they seem to want to >>>>>> be able to assert that God does not exist without saying so. (if that >>>>>> makes any sense) >>>>> >>>>> No, it makes absolutely no sense at all. >>>>> >>>>> We have never seen any evidence for your god, so it would be illogical >>>>> (and stupid) to believe it exists. Period. >>>>> >>>>> If some day we are given actual evidence, we will re-evaluate and, if >>>>> the evidence is verified, we will acknowledge that your god exists. >>>> >>>> No you wouldn't. >>>> >>>> "And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled only to those who are >>>> perishing. In their case the god of this world has blinded the minds of >>>> the unbelievers, to keep them from seeing the light of the gospel of the >>>> glory of Christ, who is the image of God." >>>> (2 Corinthians 4:3-4) >>> >>> >>> Fallacy of circular references >> >> Thank-you for participating. >> >>> >>>> You are being actively kept from believing. >>>> God doesn't want you to believe. >>> >>> Contradictory to several of the same source of references. >> >> Thank-you for participating. >> >>> >>>> "So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever >>>> he wills." >>>> (Romans 9:18) >>>> >>>> God has already made sure you will not believe. >>> >>> Contradictory to the teachings of the bible, book of Hebrew and Christian >>> myths. >> >> Cite? > > You mean you don't know your book of myths as well as I do? I bet you pray > in public. > >>> >>>> >>>>> But very few of us would actually worship that monster you worship. >>>> >>>> I know. I also know that you think of him as a "monster" because he >>>> wants you to think of him as a monster. >>>> >>>> "With the purified you show yourself pure; >>>> and with the wicked you make yourself seem tortuous." >>>> (Psalm 18:26) >>> >>> If God doesn't exist the him to which you are referring is an nonexistent >>> as the voices in a schizophrenic head. >> >> Thank-you for participating. > > Well isn't that new? > > Do you > Place your fingers in your ears and chant la-la-la, too? > >>>> Now, having said all that, I can give evidence that God exists, and the >>>> Bible is true, in just one word. >>>> >>>> And you can evaluate and verify it all you want. >>>> >>>> However, I already know, and I'm as sure of it as I am sure of my own >>>> name, you will never consider it as evidence. The sun will rise in the >>>> west before you will ever even think of accepting it as evidence. >>>> >>>> But, you're not the only person who will ever read this post, are you? >>>> >>>> Anyway, the one word is "Israel". >>>> >>>> The nation Israel in their own land, promised to them in the Bible, by God. >>>> >>>> Now, please do not take that in any way as though I'm trying to >>>> "convert" you, or "proselytize" you. Okay? >>>> >>>> After what I wrote just above, anyone with half a brain knows that's not >>>> what >>>> I'm doing. >>>> >>>> I'm doing it to prove 2 Corinthians 4:3-4, Romans 9:18, and several >>>> other verses in the Bible I have not mentioned, are all true. And you're >>>> my little guinea pig. >>>> >>>> So, thanks for taking part in this experiment. I really do appreciate it. >>>> >>>> -rd >>> >>> You are batting zero in a game what evidence alone counts. Without evidence >>> all you do is strike out with every swing. >>> >>> Take a good class in logic and make sure it covers the fallacy of self >>> reference. >> >> Thank-you for participating. > > I sure his fingers were in his ears... It is almost comical, if he wasn't > an adult. > > >>> One can not use a book of myths to valid the myths. Myths are not evidence, >>> a book of myths can not be evidence of the myth's validity. >> >> Unsubstantiated opinion noted, and duly dismissed. > > It is called logic. Any adult practicing critical thinking understands you > can not point to a book devoid of evidence to prove it is valid. The book > of myths you are pointing at has exactly the same degree of validity. By > you logic a book about Nordic myth is all the evidence we need to follow > that set of myths. Is that your way of saying, "I can't prove what I said, but I'll just start talking and maybe in the confusion he will forget what I said, and he'll believe me."? You're a clown, aren't you? >>> When you use the any book of myths to validate your own god, you just >>> equally created self validation for every other book of myths. >> >> Unsubstantiated opinion noted, and duly dismissed. > > Logic is not your friend. You hate to be proven wrong, don't you? > Maybe using a book of Greek myths, validates all the pantheon of Greek gods > as equally well as your own book of myths. I know when you know you've been exposed as a liar. You start throwing that "myth" word around, along with "book" and "gods". You give yourself away. > > >>> Nothing like shooting yourself in the logical foot. >>> >>> Sorry you don't even get a consolation prize. >> >> Thank-you for participating. > > I expected nothing more from you than your fingers in your ears. This is > much the same result as our last encounter a few years back. You lost as > badly then. I was feeling sorry for you. So I wanted you to think that, clown boy.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-02 05:23 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love |
| Message-ID | <972itb.8r0.19.1@news.alt.net> |
| In reply to | #109888 |
Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> wrote: > On 3/1/2016 5:20 PM, Bob Officer wrote: >> Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> wrote: >>> On 3/1/2016 3:59 PM, Bob Officer wrote: >>>> Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> wrote: >>>>> On 3/1/2016 4:35 AM, Jeanne Douglas wrote: >>>>>> In article <djl5dgF4fltU1@mid.individual.net>, >>>>>> felix <me@nothere.invalid> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On 29-February-2016 7:49 AM, Robert Duncan wrote: >>>>>>>> On 2/28/2016 3:39 PM, Wisely Non-Theist wrote: >>>>>>>>> In article <96s7aj.9nv.19.2@news.alt.net>, >>>>>>>>> "Ted&Alice Street" <sam.tedesco@notgmail.c> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> his (apparent) inability to comprehend the most simple things >>>>>>>>>>> is >> >> staggering. to suggest that 'there is/are no (whatever)" is >>>>>>>>>>> not a >> belief >> is just crazy. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> But almost none of us have any such belief. >>>>>>>>>>>>> You may not call it a belief >>>>>>>>> When someone does NOT believe in something, some of us call that an >>>>>>>>> absence of belief! >>>>>>>> You can "call" it whatever you want to call it. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> We know what you are really saying when you say "I have an absence of >>>>>>>> belief in God". >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> It's not that difficult. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> indeed it isn't. atheists complicate the matter to attempt to justify a >>>>>>> 'no God' position. they seem to think that if they claim that God does >>>>>>> not exist, they're admitting that there is a God. they seem to want to >>>>>>> be able to assert that God does not exist without saying so. (if that >>>>>>> makes any sense) >>>>>> >>>>>> No, it makes absolutely no sense at all. >>>>>> >>>>>> We have never seen any evidence for your god, so it would be illogical >>>>>> (and stupid) to believe it exists. Period. >>>>>> >>>>>> If some day we are given actual evidence, we will re-evaluate and, if >>>>>> the evidence is verified, we will acknowledge that your god exists. >>>>> >>>>> No you wouldn't. >>>>> >>>>> "And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled only to those who are >>>>> perishing. In their case the god of this world has blinded the minds of >>>>> the unbelievers, to keep them from seeing the light of the gospel of the >>>>> glory of Christ, who is the image of God." >>>>> (2 Corinthians 4:3-4) >>>> >>>> >>>> Fallacy of circular references >>> >>> Thank-you for participating. >>> >>>> >>>>> You are being actively kept from believing. >>>>> God doesn't want you to believe. >>>> >>>> Contradictory to several of the same source of references. >>> >>> Thank-you for participating. >>> >>>> >>>>> "So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever >>>>> he wills." >>>>> (Romans 9:18) >>>>> >>>>> God has already made sure you will not believe. >>>> >>>> Contradictory to the teachings of the bible, book of Hebrew and Christian >>>> myths. >>> >>> Cite? >> >> You mean you don't know your book of myths as well as I do? I bet you pray >> in public. >> >>>> >>>>> >>>>>> But very few of us would actually worship that monster you worship. >>>>> >>>>> I know. I also know that you think of him as a "monster" because he >>>>> wants you to think of him as a monster. >>>>> >>>>> "With the purified you show yourself pure; >>>>> and with the wicked you make yourself seem tortuous." >>>>> (Psalm 18:26) >>>> >>>> If God doesn't exist the him to which you are referring is an nonexistent >>>> as the voices in a schizophrenic head. >>> >>> Thank-you for participating. >> >> Well isn't that new? >> >> Do you >> Place your fingers in your ears and chant la-la-la, too? >> >>>>> Now, having said all that, I can give evidence that God exists, and the >>>>> Bible is true, in just one word. >>>>> >>>>> And you can evaluate and verify it all you want. >>>>> >>>>> However, I already know, and I'm as sure of it as I am sure of my own >>>>> name, you will never consider it as evidence. The sun will rise in the >>>>> west before you will ever even think of accepting it as evidence. >>>>> >>>>> But, you're not the only person who will ever read this post, are you? >>>>> >>>>> Anyway, the one word is "Israel". >>>>> >>>>> The nation Israel in their own land, promised to them in the Bible, by God. >>>>> >>>>> Now, please do not take that in any way as though I'm trying to >>>>> "convert" you, or "proselytize" you. Okay? >>>>> >>>>> After what I wrote just above, anyone with half a brain knows that's not >>>>> what >>>>> I'm doing. >>>>> >>>>> I'm doing it to prove 2 Corinthians 4:3-4, Romans 9:18, and several >>>>> other verses in the Bible I have not mentioned, are all true. And you're >>>>> my little guinea pig. >>>>> >>>>> So, thanks for taking part in this experiment. I really do appreciate it. >>>>> >>>>> -rd >>>> >>>> You are batting zero in a game what evidence alone counts. Without evidence >>>> all you do is strike out with every swing. >>>> >>>> Take a good class in logic and make sure it covers the fallacy of self >>>> reference. >>> >>> Thank-you for participating. >> >> I sure his fingers were in his ears... It is almost comical, if he wasn't >> an adult. >> >> >>>> One can not use a book of myths to valid the myths. Myths are not evidence, >>>> a book of myths can not be evidence of the myth's validity. >>> >>> Unsubstantiated opinion noted, and duly dismissed. >> >> It is called logic. Any adult practicing critical thinking understands you >> can not point to a book devoid of evidence to prove it is valid. The book >> of myths you are pointing at has exactly the same degree of validity. By >> you logic a book about Nordic myth is all the evidence we need to follow >> that set of myths. > > Is that your way of saying, "I can't prove what I said, but I'll just > start talking > and maybe in the confusion he will forget what I said, and he'll believe > me."? > > You're a clown, aren't you? That would be you. Using your own logic and exchanging book you are pointing at to a book of Greek mythology, works just as well. What you are mad about is you are being conned by the oldest con called religion. Most people which are scammed refuse to admit they are being scammed. >>>> When you use the any book of myths to validate your own god, you just >>>> equally created self validation for every other book of myths. >>> >>> Unsubstantiated opinion noted, and duly dismissed. >> >> Logic is not your friend. > > You hate to be proven wrong, don't you? > >> Maybe using a book of Greek myths, validates all the pantheon of Greek gods >> as equally well as your own book of myths. > > I know when you know you've been exposed as a liar. You start throwing that > "myth" word around, along with "book" and "gods". > > You give yourself away. Trying critical thinking, the scammed often refuse to admit they have been scammed. They often try to validate their refusal by trying to recruit others into being scammed. >>>> Nothing like shooting yourself in the logical foot. >>>> >>>> Sorry you don't even get a consolation prize. >>> >>> Thank-you for participating. >> >> I expected nothing more from you than your fingers in your ears. This is >> much the same result as our last encounter a few years back. You lost as >> badly then. > > I was feeling sorry for you. So I wanted you to think that, clown boy. > I am the person being scammed, it is you and denial of being scammed is a normal psychological reaction. -- 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 | Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-01 22:23 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love |
| Message-ID | <971qad.kdm.17.1@news.alt.net> |
| In reply to | #109879 |
Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> wrote: > On 3/1/2016 3:59 PM, Bob Officer wrote: >> Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> wrote: >>> On 3/1/2016 4:35 AM, Jeanne Douglas wrote: >>>> In article <djl5dgF4fltU1@mid.individual.net>, >>>> felix <me@nothere.invalid> wrote: >>>> >>>>> On 29-February-2016 7:49 AM, Robert Duncan wrote: >>>>>> On 2/28/2016 3:39 PM, Wisely Non-Theist wrote: >>>>>>> In article <96s7aj.9nv.19.2@news.alt.net>, >>>>>>> "Ted&Alice Street" <sam.tedesco@notgmail.c> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> his (apparent) inability to comprehend the most simple things >>>>>>>>> is >> >> staggering. to suggest that 'there is/are no (whatever)" is >>>>>>>>> not a >> belief >> is just crazy. >>>>>>>>>>>> But almost none of us have any such belief. >>>>>>>>>>> You may not call it a belief >>>>>>> When someone does NOT believe in something, some of us call that an >>>>>>> absence of belief! >>>>>> You can "call" it whatever you want to call it. >>>>>> >>>>>> We know what you are really saying when you say "I have an absence of >>>>>> belief in God". >>>>>> >>>>>> It's not that difficult. >>>>> >>>>> indeed it isn't. atheists complicate the matter to attempt to justify a >>>>> 'no God' position. they seem to think that if they claim that God does >>>>> not exist, they're admitting that there is a God. they seem to want to >>>>> be able to assert that God does not exist without saying so. (if that >>>>> makes any sense) >>>> >>>> No, it makes absolutely no sense at all. >>>> >>>> We have never seen any evidence for your god, so it would be illogical >>>> (and stupid) to believe it exists. Period. >>>> >>>> If some day we are given actual evidence, we will re-evaluate and, if >>>> the evidence is verified, we will acknowledge that your god exists. >>> >>> No you wouldn't. >>> >>> "And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled only to those who are >>> perishing. In their case the god of this world has blinded the minds of >>> the unbelievers, to keep them from seeing the light of the gospel of the >>> glory of Christ, who is the image of God." >>> (2 Corinthians 4:3-4) >> >> >> Fallacy of circular references > > Thank-you for participating. > >> >>> You are being actively kept from believing. >>> God doesn't want you to believe. >> >> Contradictory to several of the same source of references. > > Thank-you for participating. > >> >>> "So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever >>> he wills." >>> (Romans 9:18) >>> >>> God has already made sure you will not believe. >> >> Contradictory to the teachings of the bible, book of Hebrew and Christian >> myths. > > Cite? > >> >>> >>>> But very few of us would actually worship that monster you worship. >>> >>> I know. I also know that you think of him as a "monster" because he >>> wants you to think of him as a monster. >>> >>> "With the purified you show yourself pure; >>> and with the wicked you make yourself seem tortuous." >>> (Psalm 18:26) >> >> If God doesn't exist the him to which you are referring is an nonexistent >> as the voices in a schizophrenic head. > > Thank-you for participating. > > >>> Now, having said all that, I can give evidence that God exists, and the >>> Bible is true, in just one word. >>> >>> And you can evaluate and verify it all you want. >>> >>> However, I already know, and I'm as sure of it as I am sure of my own >>> name, you will never consider it as evidence. The sun will rise in the >>> west before you will ever even think of accepting it as evidence. >>> >>> But, you're not the only person who will ever read this post, are you? >>> >>> Anyway, the one word is "Israel". >>> >>> The nation Israel in their own land, promised to them in the Bible, by God. >>> >>> Now, please do not take that in any way as though I'm trying to >>> "convert" you, or "proselytize" you. Okay? >>> >>> After what I wrote just above, anyone with half a brain knows that's not >>> what >>> I'm doing. >>> >>> I'm doing it to prove 2 Corinthians 4:3-4, Romans 9:18, and several >>> other verses in the Bible I have not mentioned, are all true. And you're >>> my little guinea pig. >>> >>> So, thanks for taking part in this experiment. I really do appreciate it. >>> >>> -rd >> >> You are batting zero in a game what evidence alone counts. Without evidence >> all you do is strike out with every swing. >> >> Take a good class in logic and make sure it covers the fallacy of self >> reference. > > Thank-you for participating. > >> One can not use a book of myths to valid the myths. Myths are not evidence, >> a book of myths can not be evidence of the myth's validity. > > Unsubstantiated opinion noted, and duly dismissed. > >> When you use the any book of myths to validate your own god, you just >> equally created self validation for every other book of myths. > > Unsubstantiated opinion noted, and duly dismissed. > >> Nothing like shooting yourself in the logical foot. >> >> Sorry you don't even get a consolation prize. > > Thank-you for participating. > > How does it feel to be living proof? https://goo.gl/oGRtgT Or https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/our-humanity-naturally/201506/anti-intellectualism-is-killing-america -- 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. -- 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 | 2016-03-01 17:34 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love |
| Message-ID | <nb5574$llt$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #109881 |
On 3/1/2016 5:23 PM, Bob Officer wrote: > How does it feel to be living proof? Unsubstantiated opinion opinion noted, and duly dismissed as irrelevant. <smirk>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Wisely Non-Theist <aaa@bbb.ccc> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-01 16:04 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love |
| Message-ID | <aaa-DB39BB.16045401032016@news.giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #109882 |
In article <nb5574$llt$1@dont-email.me>, Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> wrote: > On 3/1/2016 5:23 PM, Bob Officer wrote: > > > How does it feel to be living proof? > > Unsubstantiated opinion opinion noted, and duly dismissed as irrelevant. As are the various claimed proofs of your many varied and mutually incompossible gods!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-01 20:36 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love |
| Message-ID | <nb5fs7$qk6$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #109884 |
On 3/1/2016 6:04 PM, Wisely Non-Theist wrote: > In article <nb5574$llt$1@dont-email.me>, > Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> wrote: > >> On 3/1/2016 5:23 PM, Bob Officer wrote: >> >>> How does it feel to be living proof? >> >> Unsubstantiated opinion opinion noted, and duly dismissed as irrelevant. > > As are the various claimed proofs of your many varied and mutually > incompossible gods! Q: How do I know you don't know what you're talking about? A: I'm a monotheist. You're welcome.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Wisely Non-Theist <aaa@bbb.ccc> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-02 01:09 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love |
| Message-ID | <aaa-CD7893.01094102032016@news.giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #109890 |
In article <nb5fs7$qk6$2@dont-email.me>, Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> wrote: > On 3/1/2016 6:04 PM, Wisely Non-Theist wrote: > > In article <nb5574$llt$1@dont-email.me>, > > Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> wrote: > > > >> On 3/1/2016 5:23 PM, Bob Officer wrote: > >> > >>> How does it feel to be living proof? > >> > >> Unsubstantiated opinion opinion noted, and duly dismissed as irrelevant. > > > > As are the various claimed proofs of your many varied and mutually > > incompossible gods! > > Q: How do I know you don't know what you're talking about? You don't! > > A: I'm a monotheist. No, I am agnostic in the sense that I di noit beeive that there is any way of either proving or disproving the existence of an abstract god, though I feel that there may very well be ways of disproving the existence of certain particular claims of specific godly existence.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-02 11:50 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love |
| Message-ID | <iddedbdmbjnndp0262tia4orosd6qpsepg@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #109899 |
On Wed, 02 Mar 2016 01:09:41 -0700, the following appeared in sci.skeptic, posted by Wisely Non-Theist <aaa@bbb.ccc>: >In article <nb5fs7$qk6$2@dont-email.me>, > Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> wrote: > >> On 3/1/2016 6:04 PM, Wisely Non-Theist wrote: >> > In article <nb5574$llt$1@dont-email.me>, >> > Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> wrote: >> > >> >> On 3/1/2016 5:23 PM, Bob Officer wrote: >> >> >> >>> How does it feel to be living proof? >> >> >> >> Unsubstantiated opinion opinion noted, and duly dismissed as irrelevant. >> > >> > As are the various claimed proofs of your many varied and mutually >> > incompossible gods! >> >> Q: How do I know you don't know what you're talking about? > >You don't! >> >> A: I'm a monotheist. > >No, I am agnostic in the sense that I di noit beeive that there is any >way of either proving or disproving the existence of an abstract god, >though I feel that there may very well be ways of disproving the >existence of certain particular claims of specific godly existence. Precisely. And quite a few have been refuted. (Which says nothing about the existence of deities, merely about claims people have made about them.) -- Bob C. "The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not 'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'" - Isaac Asimov
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-02 14:20 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love |
| Message-ID | <nb7e87$7nn$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #109899 |
On 3/2/2016 3:09 AM, Wisely Non-Theist wrote: > In article <nb5fs7$qk6$2@dont-email.me>, > Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> wrote: > >> On 3/1/2016 6:04 PM, Wisely Non-Theist wrote: >>> In article <nb5574$llt$1@dont-email.me>, >>> Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> wrote: >>> >>>> On 3/1/2016 5:23 PM, Bob Officer wrote: >>>> >>>>> How does it feel to be living proof? >>>> >>>> Unsubstantiated opinion opinion noted, and duly dismissed as irrelevant. >>> >>> As are the various claimed proofs of your many varied and mutually >>> incompossible gods! >> >> Q: How do I know you don't know what you're talking about? > > You don't! Yes I do. >> >> A: I'm a monotheist. > > No, I am agnostic in the sense that I di noit beeive that there is any > way of either proving or disproving the existence of an abstract god, > though I feel that there may very well be ways of disproving the > existence of certain particular claims of specific godly existence. Alrighty. But that has absolutely nothing to do with the question I asked you. Hello, anybody home? Let's do this. Let me refresh your memory, or whatever memory you have left. You claimed that I had "many varied and mutually incompossible gods!" Are you with me so far? Okay, here we go. Ready? Since I am a monotheist, and I'm assuming you know what that big word means, and no matter how anyone interprets "incompossible", you're just wrong. So therefore, there's no way you could have known what you were talking about. Okeydokey. There you go. See? That didn't hurt a bit, did it? Now be sure and get a lolly-pop from the nurse on your way out the door. Buh-bye.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Virgil <VIRGIL@VIRGIL.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-02 14:28 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love |
| Message-ID | <VIRGIL-D7D5B2.14280202032016@news.giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #109913 |
In article <nb7e87$7nn$1@dont-email.me>, Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> wrote: > On 3/2/2016 3:09 AM, Wisely Non-Theist wrote: > > In article <nb5fs7$qk6$2@dont-email.me>, > > Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> wrote: > > > >> On 3/1/2016 6:04 PM, Wisely Non-Theist wrote: > >>> In article <nb5574$llt$1@dont-email.me>, > >>> Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> wrote: > >>> > >>>> On 3/1/2016 5:23 PM, Bob Officer wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> How does it feel to be living proof? > >>>> > >>>> Unsubstantiated opinion opinion noted, and duly dismissed as irrelevant. > >>> > >>> As are the various claimed proofs of your many varied and mutually > >>> incompossible gods! > >> > >> Q: How do I know you don't know what you're talking about? > > > > You don't! > > Yes I do. Mere belief is not knowledge > > >> > >> A: I'm a monotheist. > > > > No, I am agnostic in the sense that I dp not beeive that there is any > > way of either proving or disproving the existence of an abstract god, > > though I feel that there may very well be ways of disproving the > > existence of certain particular claims of specific godly existence. > > Alrighty. But that has absolutely nothing to do with the question I > asked you. Hello, anybody home? > > Let's do this. Let me refresh your memory, or whatever memory you have left. > > You claimed that I had "many varied and mutually incompossible gods!" Not you personally and individually, but you theists collectively! > > Are you with me so far? Okay, here we go. Ready? > > Since I am a monotheist, and I'm assuming you know what that big word > means, and no matter how anyone interprets "incompossible", you're just > wrong. Until you have produced scientifically acceptable evidence of the existence of one of your alleged godlike beings, you have no evidence of any wrongness by me whatsoever. As far as I can see, the evidences for any of your (or anyone else's) claimed godly existences in no way exceeds the evidence for the actual existence of a Santa Claus, or a tooth fairy. -- Virgil "Mit der Dummheit kampfen Gotter selbst vergebens." (Schiller)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-02 15:32 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love |
| Message-ID | <ftmedb5os87ob6e6krnp272633kl6mqfcj@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #109916 |
On Wed, 02 Mar 2016 14:28:02 -0700, Virgil <VIRGIL@VIRGIL.com> wrote: >In article <nb7e87$7nn$1@dont-email.me>, > Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> wrote: > >> On 3/2/2016 3:09 AM, Wisely Non-Theist wrote: >> > In article <nb5fs7$qk6$2@dont-email.me>, >> > Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> wrote: >> > >> >> On 3/1/2016 6:04 PM, Wisely Non-Theist wrote: >> >>> In article <nb5574$llt$1@dont-email.me>, >> >>> Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> wrote: >> >>> >> >>>> On 3/1/2016 5:23 PM, Bob Officer wrote: >> >>>> >> >>>>> How does it feel to be living proof? >> >>>> >> >>>> Unsubstantiated opinion opinion noted, and duly dismissed as irrelevant. >> >>> >> >>> As are the various claimed proofs of your many varied and mutually >> >>> incompossible gods! >> >> >> >> Q: How do I know you don't know what you're talking about? >> > >> > You don't! >> >> Yes I do. > >Mere belief is not knowledge >> >> >> >> >> A: I'm a monotheist. >> > >> > No, I am agnostic in the sense that I dp not beeive that there is any >> > way of either proving or disproving the existence of an abstract god, >> > though I feel that there may very well be ways of disproving the >> > existence of certain particular claims of specific godly existence. >> >> Alrighty. But that has absolutely nothing to do with the question I >> asked you. Hello, anybody home? >> >> Let's do this. Let me refresh your memory, or whatever memory you have left. >> >> You claimed that I had "many varied and mutually incompossible gods!" > >Not you personally and individually, but you theists collectively! >> >> Are you with me so far? Okay, here we go. Ready? >> >> Since I am a monotheist, and I'm assuming you know what that big word >> means, and no matter how anyone interprets "incompossible", you're just >> wrong. > >Until you have produced scientifically acceptable evidence of the >existence of one of your alleged godlike beings, you have no evidence of >any wrongness by me whatsoever. > >As far as I can see, the evidences for any of your (or anyone else's) >claimed godly existences in no way exceeds the evidence for the actual >existence of a Santa Claus, or a tooth fairy. So it remains merely a belief, albeit one held by many people.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Virgil <VIRGIL@VIRGIL.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-02 16:12 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love |
| Message-ID | <VIRGIL-1A64C2.16121702032016@news.giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #109917 |
In article <ftmedb5os87ob6e6krnp272633kl6mqfcj@4ax.com>, Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> wrote: > On Wed, 02 Mar 2016 14:28:02 -0700, Virgil <VIRGIL@VIRGIL.com> wrote: > > >In article <nb7e87$7nn$1@dont-email.me>, > > Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> wrote: > > > >> On 3/2/2016 3:09 AM, Wisely Non-Theist wrote: > >> > In article <nb5fs7$qk6$2@dont-email.me>, > >> > Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> wrote: > >> > > >> >> On 3/1/2016 6:04 PM, Wisely Non-Theist wrote: > >> >>> In article <nb5574$llt$1@dont-email.me>, > >> >>> Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> wrote: > >> >>> > >> >>>> On 3/1/2016 5:23 PM, Bob Officer wrote: > >> >>>> > >> >>>>> How does it feel to be living proof? > >> >>>> > >> >>>> Unsubstantiated opinion opinion noted, and duly dismissed as > >> >>>> irrelevant. > >> >>> > >> >>> As are the various claimed proofs of your many varied and mutually > >> >>> incompossible gods! > >> >> > >> >> Q: How do I know you don't know what you're talking about? > >> > > >> > You don't! > >> > >> Yes I do. > > > >Mere belief is not knowledge > >> > >> >> > >> >> A: I'm a monotheist. > >> > > >> > No, I am agnostic in the sense that I dp not beeive that there is any > >> > way of either proving or disproving the existence of an abstract god, > >> > though I feel that there may very well be ways of disproving the > >> > existence of certain particular claims of specific godly existence. > >> > >> Alrighty. But that has absolutely nothing to do with the question I > >> asked you. Hello, anybody home? > >> > >> Let's do this. Let me refresh your memory, or whatever memory you have > >> left. > >> > >> You claimed that I had "many varied and mutually incompossible gods!" > > > >Not you personally and individually, but you theists collectively! > >> > >> Are you with me so far? Okay, here we go. Ready? > >> > >> Since I am a monotheist, and I'm assuming you know what that big word > >> means, and no matter how anyone interprets "incompossible", you're just > >> wrong. > > > >Until you have produced scientifically acceptable evidence of the > >existence of one of your alleged godlike beings, you have no evidence of > >any wrongness by me whatsoever. > > > >As far as I can see, the evidences for any of your (or anyone else's) > >claimed godly existences in no way exceeds the evidence for the actual > >existence of a Santa Claus, or a tooth fairy. > > So it remains merely a belief, albeit one held by many people. Just so! -- Virgil "Mit der Dummheit kampfen Gotter selbst vergebens." (Schiller)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-02 19:49 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love |
| Message-ID | <nb81eg$nb6$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #109916 |
On 3/2/2016 4:28 PM, Virgil wrote: > Until you have produced scientifically acceptable evidence of the > existence of one of your alleged godlike beings, you have no evidence of > any wrongness by me whatsoever. I wasn't talking to you. You like being the center of attention, don't you? And you really really hate it when someone steals the spotlight from you. Don't you think it's about time for you to grow up?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-03 12:58 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love |
| Message-ID | <djqqndFilj7U2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #109926 |
On 03/03/2016 00:49, Robert Duncan wrote: > On 3/2/2016 4:28 PM, Virgil wrote: > >> Until you have produced scientifically acceptable evidence of the >> existence of one of your alleged godlike beings, you have no evidence of >> any wrongness by me whatsoever. > > I wasn't talking to you. > > You like being the center of attention, don't you? > > And you really really hate it when someone steals the spotlight from you. > > Don't you think it's about time for you to grow up? > Have you still not noticed that this is a public forum? If you want a private conversation, this is not the place. So stop whinging.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-03 08:23 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love |
| Message-ID | <nb9dn8$vjh$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #109938 |
On 3/3/2016 7:58 AM, Alex W. wrote: > On 03/03/2016 00:49, Robert Duncan wrote: >> On 3/2/2016 4:28 PM, Virgil wrote: >> >>> Until you have produced scientifically acceptable evidence of the >>> existence of one of your alleged godlike beings, you have no evidence of >>> any wrongness by me whatsoever. >> >> I wasn't talking to you. >> >> You like being the center of attention, don't you? >> >> And you really really hate it when someone steals the spotlight from you. >> >> Don't you think it's about time for you to grow up? >> > > Have you still not noticed that this is a public forum? If you want a > private conversation, this is not the place. Virgil wrote, "...you have no evidence of any wrongness by me whatsoever." I wasn't seeking a "private conversation" with anyone. All I am seeking for is somebody with a little honesty.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-03 17:50 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love |
| Message-ID | <976j1v.948.17.2@news.alt.net> |
| In reply to | #109938 |
Alex W. <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > On 03/03/2016 00:49, Robert Duncan wrote: >> On 3/2/2016 4:28 PM, Virgil wrote: >> >>> Until you have produced scientifically acceptable evidence of the >>> existence of one of your alleged godlike beings, you have no evidence of >>> any wrongness by me whatsoever. >> >> I wasn't talking to you. >> >> You like being the center of attention, don't you? >> >> And you really really hate it when someone steals the spotlight from you. >> >> Don't you think it's about time for you to grow up? >> > > Have you still not noticed that this is a public forum? If you want a > private conversation, this is not the place. > > So stop whinging. > This is what happens when smart people show the ridiculous claims are dismissed because the burden of proof is the claimants. Until the evidence shows up ignore the claims. Proving there is a god is the job of the claimant. We have examined the claims and statements made in their various books of myths and dismissed the anecdotal testimony as being false. The ball is in their court. -- 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 13:53 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: www.thescienceforum.com/ is a forum you might love |
| Message-ID | <nba11c$asb$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #109945 |
On 3/3/2016 12:50 PM, Bob Officer wrote: > Alex W. <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: >> On 03/03/2016 00:49, Robert Duncan wrote: >>> On 3/2/2016 4:28 PM, Virgil wrote: >>> >>>> Until you have produced scientifically acceptable evidence of the >>>> existence of one of your alleged godlike beings, you have no evidence of >>>> any wrongness by me whatsoever. >>> >>> I wasn't talking to you. >>> >>> You like being the center of attention, don't you? >>> >>> And you really really hate it when someone steals the spotlight from you. >>> >>> Don't you think it's about time for you to grow up? >>> >> >> Have you still not noticed that this is a public forum? If you want a >> private conversation, this is not the place. >> >> So stop whinging. >> > > This is what happens when smart people show the ridiculous claims are > dismissed because the burden of proof is the claimants. The only thing I am claiming is that I believe God exists. I'm not asking you, or anyone else, to adopt the same belief. I'm not expecting you to believe the Bible is the Word of God, nor have I asked you to believe the Bible is the Word of God. But keep asserting that the Bible is a "book of myths". The burden is on you to prove your assertion is true, otherwise you are a liar. The ball is now in your court.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 9 of 24 — ← Prev page 1 … 7 8 [9] 10 11 … 24 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.skeptic
csiph-web