Discussion:
Zionist speaks to believers
(too old to reply)
u***@att.net
2010-09-23 23:10:42 UTC
Permalink
"Vengeance belongeth unto me, I will recompense, saith the Lord." -
(Hebrews 10:30)

This is to believers only. So far I've met and disputed with godless
pagans here and have quite frankly found the experience to be no great
challenge. So I thought to encourage you believers that might be here.

You the believers, as saints of God, have heaven and all the angels
on your side ready to act on your behalf...

2Thessalonians 1:6 Seeing it is a righteous thing with God to
recompense tribulation to them that trouble you;

2Thessalonians 1:7 And to you who are troubled rest with us, when
the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels,

2Thessalonians 1:8 In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that
know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ:

2Thessalonians 1:9 Who shall be punished with everlasting
destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his
power;

2Thessalonians 1:10 When he shall come to be glorified in his
saints, and to be admired in all them that believe (because our
testimony among you was believed) in that day.

The day of reckoning will be noted as the songs of Zion are sung once
again in the land....

Psalm 137:1 By the rivers of Babylon, there we sat down, yea, we
wept, when we remembered Zion.

Psalm 137:2 We hanged our harps upon the willows in the midst
thereof.

Psalm 137:3 For there they that carried us away captive required
of us a song; and they that wasted us required of us mirth, saying,
"Sing us one of the songs of Zion".

Psalm 137:4 How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?

The land is yours if it so be that you've entered into the rest and
the land of promise. Let the songs of Zion be heard...

Revelation 15:1 And I saw another sign in heaven, great and
marvellous, seven angels having the seven last plagues; for in them is
filled up the wrath of God.

Revelation 15:2 And I saw as it were a sea of glass mingled with fire:
and them that had gotten the victory over the beast, and over his
image, and over his mark, and over the number of his name, stand on
the sea of glass, having the harps of God.

Revelation 15:3 And they sing the song of Moses the servant of God,
and the song of the Lamb, saying, "Great and marvellous are thy works,
Lord God Almighty; just and true are thy ways, thou King of saints".

The end has been known since the beginning. Wrongs shall be made
right. Justice shall be served....

"Remember the former things of old: for I am God, and there is none
else; I am God, and there is none like me, Declaring the end from the
beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done,
saying, 'My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure'."
(Isaiah 46:9-10):

Let the saints of God rest in full assurance....

Hebrews 4:3 For we which have believed do enter into rest, as he
said, "As I have sworn in my wrath, if they shall enter into my rest:
although the works were finished from the foundation of the world".

Hebrews 4:4 For he spake in a certain place of the seventh day on
this wise, "And God did rest the seventh day from all his works".

Hebrews 4:5 "And in this place again, If they shall enter into my
rest."

u4z (a son of Zion and Watchman upon the wall)
Larry
2010-09-24 01:43:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by u***@att.net
"Vengeance belongeth unto me, I will recompense, saith the Lord." -
Do they think it's more impressive or "godly" to say everything in Olde
English, instead of modern English?

I never figured out why they STILL continue to print Olde English bibles.
Maybe it makes them look more scholarly. If they want that, they'd be
printing them in the original Aramaic, wouldn't they? One dead language is
as good as another.
archie dux
2010-09-24 15:56:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Larry
Post by u***@att.net
"Vengeance belongeth unto me, I will recompense, saith the Lord." -
Do they think it's more impressive or "godly" to say everything in Olde
English, instead of modern English?
Oh, that's just the Protestant equivalent of the Latin Mass.
Catholics think all the God leaks out if the Mass isn't
rendered in Latin; Protestants think God sounds
more imposing in Elizabethan English. (and not
a few evangelicals appear to think that Jesus
spake...um, spoke like King Lear)

That said, I must confess that I prefer the
King James. Of course, I'm also one of those who
reacts violently when it's suggested that
Shakespeare or Marlowe ought to be
"translated" into current English.


archie
Post by Larry
I never figured out why they STILL continue to print Olde English bibles.  
Maybe it makes them look more scholarly.  If they want that, they'd be
printing them in the original Aramaic, wouldn't they?  One dead language is
as good as another.
Wombat
2010-09-24 18:52:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by archie dux
Post by Larry
Post by u***@att.net
"Vengeance belongeth unto me, I will recompense, saith the Lord." -
Do they think it's more impressive or "godly" to say everything in Olde
English, instead of modern English?
Oh, that's just the Protestant equivalent of the Latin Mass.
Catholics think all the God leaks out if the Mass isn't
rendered in Latin; Protestants think God sounds
more imposing in Elizabethan English.  (and not
a few evangelicals appear to think that Jesus
spake...um, spoke like King Lear)
That said, I must confess that I prefer the
King James.  Of course, I'm also one of those who
reacts violently when it's suggested that
Shakespeare or Marlowe ought to be
"translated" into current English.
archie
When I was an altar boy in the 1960's I loved the Latin of the
Tridentine Mass and I still like the sonorous prose of Wycliffe's
Bible.

Wombat
u***@att.net
2010-09-25 00:03:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Larry
Post by u***@att.net
"Vengeance belongeth unto me, I will recompense, saith the Lord." -
Do they think it's more impressive or "godly" to say everything in Olde
English, instead of modern English?
I never figured out why they STILL continue to print Olde English bibles.
Maybe it makes them look more scholarly. If they want that, they'd be
printing them in the original Aramaic, wouldn't they? One dead language is
as good as another.
No. The KJV is at the 12th grade reading level so you guys cannot
understand it.

Furthermore, it was not intended for you to understand no matter at
what education level it was written...

"Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not;
and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand. And in them is
fulfilled the prophecy of Esaias, which saith, "By hearing ye shall
hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and shall not
perceive: For this people's heart is waxed gross, and their ears are
dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time
they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and should
understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should
heal them"." - Jesus (Matthew 13:13-15)

You need to get right with God.

u4z
huge
2010-09-25 00:07:51 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 24 Sep 2010 18:03:35 -0600, us4zion posted:
<snippage>
Post by u***@att.net
You need to get right with God.
u4z
You need to perform an impossible indecency upon yourself.
--
Not on my time you don't.
The Chief Instigator
2010-09-25 04:11:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by u***@att.net
Post by Larry
Post by u***@att.net
"Vengeance belongeth unto me, I will recompense, saith the Lord." -
Do they think it's more impressive or "godly" to say everything in Olde
English, instead of modern English?
I never figured out why they STILL continue to print Olde English bibles.
Maybe it makes them look more scholarly. If they want that, they'd be
printing them in the original Aramaic, wouldn't they? One dead language is
as good as another.
No. The KJV is at the 12th grade reading level so you guys cannot
understand it.
So? I only spent five years past 12th grade at the Uiversity of Houston,
and I spent twelve years at Rice University as an employee in the computer
center.
Post by u***@att.net
Furthermore, it was not intended for you to understand no matter at
what education level it was written...
"Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not;
and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand. And in them is
fulfilled the prophecy of Esaias, which saith, "By hearing ye shall
hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and shall not
perceive: For this people's heart is waxed gross, and their ears are
dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time
they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and should
understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should
heal them"." - Jesus (Matthew 13:13-15)
You need to get right with God.
u4z
You need to live in reality at least once. I've only got 19,000 and change
days in that department, so far.
--
Patrick L. "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (***@io.com) Houston, TX
www.prismnet.com/~patrick (TCI's 2009-10 Houston Aeros) AA#2273
LAST GAME: San Antonio 3, Houston 2 (April 11)
NEXT GAME: Saturday, October 9 at Oklahoma City, 7:05
u***@att.net
2010-09-26 00:02:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Chief Instigator
Post by u***@att.net
Post by Larry
Post by u***@att.net
"Vengeance belongeth unto me, I will recompense, saith the Lord." -
Do they think it's more impressive or "godly" to say everything in Olde
English, instead of modern English?
I never figured out why they STILL continue to print Olde English bibles.
Maybe it makes them look more scholarly. If they want that, they'd be
printing them in the original Aramaic, wouldn't they? One dead language is
as good as another.
No. The KJV is at the 12th grade reading level so you guys cannot
understand it.
So? I only spent five years past 12th grade at the Uiversity of Houston,
and I spent twelve years at Rice University as an employee in the computer
center.
Post by u***@att.net
Furthermore, it was not intended for you to understand no matter at
what education level it was written...
"Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not;
and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand. And in them is
fulfilled the prophecy of Esaias, which saith, "By hearing ye shall
hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and shall not
perceive: For this people's heart is waxed gross, and their ears are
dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time
they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and should
understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should
heal them"." - Jesus (Matthew 13:13-15)
You need to get right with God.
u4z
You need to live in reality at least once. I've only got 19,000 and change
days in that department, so far.
I was talking to believers, not you.

u4z
Larry
2010-09-26 05:43:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by u***@att.net
Post by The Chief Instigator
Post by u***@att.net
You need to get right with God.
u4z
You need to live in reality at least once. I've only got 19,000 and
change days in that department, so far.
I was talking to believers, not you.
u4z
Then, why do you post to believers in alt.atheism? That doesn't make any
sense.
Yap
2010-09-28 03:51:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by u***@att.net
Post by The Chief Instigator
Post by u***@att.net
You need to get right with God.
u4z
You need to live in reality at least once. I've only got 19,000 and
change days in that department, so far.
I was talking to believers, not you.
u4z
Then, why do you post to believers in alt.atheism?  That doesn't make any
sense.
And sense is lacking, actually.
Uncle Vic
2010-09-24 06:06:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by u***@att.net
This is to believers only.
Then why did you post it to alt.atheism? Oops!
--
Uncle Vic
aa Atheist #2011

"Natural selection works when the evolutionist says so."
--AllSeeing-I 9/20/10
u***@att.net
2010-09-25 00:05:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Uncle Vic
Post by u***@att.net
This is to believers only.
Then why did you post it to alt.atheism? Oops!
Alt.atheism has closet believers in it.

u4z
The Chief Instigator
2010-09-25 04:12:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by u***@att.net
Post by Uncle Vic
Post by u***@att.net
This is to believers only.
Then why did you post it to alt.atheism? Oops!
Alt.atheism has closet believers in it.
u4z
It attracts you like blood attracts mosquitos.
--
Patrick L. "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (***@io.com) Houston, TX
www.prismnet.com/~patrick (TCI's 2009-10 Houston Aeros) AA#2273
LAST GAME: San Antonio 3, Houston 2 (April 11)
NEXT GAME: Saturday, October 9 at Oklahoma City, 7:05
u***@att.net
2010-09-26 00:04:45 UTC
Permalink
Obviously you've become obsessed.

u4z
Post by The Chief Instigator
Post by u***@att.net
Post by Uncle Vic
Post by u***@att.net
This is to believers only.
Then why did you post it to alt.atheism? Oops!
Alt.atheism has closet believers in it.
u4z
It attracts you like blood attracts mosquitos.
AZ Nomad
2010-09-26 00:30:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by u***@att.net
Obviously you've become obsessed.
you're projecting
Uncle Vic
2010-09-26 03:18:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by AZ Nomad
Post by u***@att.net
Obviously you've become obsessed.
you're projecting
(And top-posting)
--
Uncle Vic
aa Atheist #2011

"Natural selection works when the evolutionist says so."
--AllSeeing-I 9/20/10
The Chief Instigator
2010-09-27 03:12:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by u***@att.net
Obviously you've become obsessed.
u4z
Post by The Chief Instigator
Post by u***@att.net
Post by Uncle Vic
Post by u***@att.net
This is to believers only.
Then why did you post it to alt.atheism? Oops!
Alt.atheism has closet believers in it.
u4z
It attracts you like blood attracts mosquitos.
We've got the insecticide.
--
Patrick L. "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (***@io.com) Houston, TX
www.prismnet.com/~patrick (TCI's 2009-10 Houston Aeros) AA#2237
LAST GAME: San Antonio 3, Houston 2 (April 11)
NEXT GAME: Saturday, October 9 at Oklahoma City, 7:05
AllSeeing-I
2010-09-25 00:40:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by u***@att.net
This is to believers only.
Then why did you post it to alt.atheism?  Oops!
--
Uncle Vic
aa Atheist #2011
"Natural selection works when the evolutionist says so."
--AllSeeing-I  9/20/10
I'm impressed that you quote from me in your Sig.

thanks for spreading my word.
Virgil
2010-09-25 03:22:40 UTC
Permalink
In article
Post by AllSeeing-I
Post by u***@att.net
This is to believers only.
Then why did you post it to alt.atheism?  Oops!
--
Uncle Vic
aa Atheist #2011
"Natural selection works when the evolutionist says so."
--AllSeeing-I  9/20/10
I'm impressed that you quote from me in your Sig.
thanks for spreading my word.
He is spreading the word that you lie.
Erwin Moller
2010-09-24 13:04:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by u***@att.net
"Vengeance belongeth unto me, I will recompense, saith the Lord." -
(Hebrews 10:30)
This is to believers only. So far I've met and disputed with godless
pagans here and have quite frankly found the experience to be no great
challenge.
That is because you cannot read for comprehension.

You have plenty of challenges.
You simply choose to leave them be.

If you need one at random: Why should anybody take your version of God
more seriously than any other?
for example: Why not Thor?
Post by u***@att.net
So I thought to encourage you believers that might be here.
That is the only thing you do.
Don't pretend you are finished converting the atheists.

[I snipped the rest because it wasn't meant for me.]
Post by u***@att.net
u4z (a son of Zion and Watchman upon the wall)
Now, please tell this ignorant pagan: What does a watchman on the wall
do exactly?

Erwin Moller
--
"There are two ways of constructing a software design: One way is to
make it so simple that there are obviously no deficiencies, and the
other way is to make it so complicated that there are no obvious
deficiencies. The first method is far more difficult."
-- C.A.R. Hoare
u***@att.net
2010-09-25 00:07:36 UTC
Permalink
Erwin Moller
Post by Erwin Moller
Post by u***@att.net
"Vengeance belongeth unto me, I will recompense, saith the Lord." -
(Hebrews 10:30)
This is to believers only. So far I've met and disputed with godless
pagans here and have quite frankly found the experience to be no great
challenge.
That is because you cannot read for comprehension.
You have plenty of challenges.
You simply choose to leave them be.
If you need one at random: Why should anybody take your version of God
more seriously than any other?
for example: Why not Thor?
Post by u***@att.net
So I thought to encourage you believers that might be here.
That is the only thing you do.
Don't pretend you are finished converting the atheists.
[I snipped the rest because it wasn't meant for me.]
Post by u***@att.net
u4z (a son of Zion and Watchman upon the wall)
Now, please tell this ignorant pagan: What does a watchman on the wall
do exactly?
Erwin Moller
I will tell you nothing except what I want, when I want.

Put that in you pipe and smoke it.

u4z
AllSeeing-I
2010-09-25 00:59:07 UTC
Permalink
On Sep 24, 8:04 am, Erwin Moller
Post by Erwin Moller
Post by u***@att.net
"Vengeance belongeth unto me, I will recompense, saith the Lord." -
(Hebrews 10:30)
This is to believers only. So far I've met and disputed with godless
pagans here and have quite frankly found the experience to be no great
challenge.
That is because you cannot read for comprehension.
You have plenty of challenges.
You simply choose to leave them be.
If you need one at random: Why should anybody take your version of God
more seriously than any other?
for example: Why not Thor?
Post by u***@att.net
So I thought to encourage you believers that might be here.
That is the only thing you do.
Don't pretend you are finished converting the atheists.
[I snipped the rest because it wasn't meant for me.]
Post by u***@att.net
u4z (a son of Zion and Watchman upon the wall)
Now, please tell this ignorant pagan: What does a watchman on the wall
do exactly?
Erwin Moller
--
"There are two ways of constructing a software design: One way is to
make it so simple that there are obviously no deficiencies, and the
other way is to make it so complicated that there are no obvious
deficiencies. The first method is far more difficult."
-- C.A.R. Hoare
Thor was cast down to Earth and forced to live among humans as
punishment. Satan and his crew were kicked out of heaven by Michael
and Gabriell and forced to live among humans. Thor is Satan. They are
known in the bible as "the fallen Angels".

Many of the Greek and Roman gods are just other names for the original
Sumer Gods in their respective language. A different name does not
mean a different god.

So your whine about "which god" is moot. The atheist arguments usually
are moot because they originate from a lack of understanding.

What did God say? God said my people perish because of lack of
knowledge.

Try learning your subject matter heathen.

There are gods. And then, there is the one true GOD.

Now that you know this, there will be no excuse for your refusing God
on the last day when judgment comes to us all.

You will be in the awkward position of having to say "I simply refused
to believe".
Tim Miller
2010-09-25 01:07:27 UTC
Permalink
On Sep 24, 8:04 am, Erwin Moller
Post by Erwin Moller
Post by u***@att.net
"Vengeance belongeth unto me, I will recompense, saith the Lord." -
(Hebrews 10:30)
This is to believers only. So far I've met and disputed with godless
pagans here and have quite frankly found the experience to be no great
challenge.
That is because you cannot read for comprehension.
You have plenty of challenges.
You simply choose to leave them be.
If you need one at random: Why should anybody take your version of God
more seriously than any other?
for example: Why not Thor?
Post by u***@att.net
So I thought to encourage you believers that might be here.
That is the only thing you do.
Don't pretend you are finished converting the atheists.
[I snipped the rest because it wasn't meant for me.]
Post by u***@att.net
u4z (a son of Zion and Watchman upon the wall)
Now, please tell this ignorant pagan: What does a watchman on the wall
do exactly?
Erwin Moller
--
"There are two ways of constructing a software design: One way is to
make it so simple that there are obviously no deficiencies, and the
other way is to make it so complicated that there are no obvious
deficiencies. The first method is far more difficult."
-- C.A.R. Hoare
Thor was cast down to Earth and forced to live among humans as
punishment. Satan and his crew were kicked out of heaven by Michael
and Gabriell and forced to live among humans. Thor is Satan. They are
known in the bible as "the fallen Angels".
Many of the Greek and Roman gods are just other names for the original
Sumer Gods in their respective language. A different name does not
mean a different god.
Well, no, they're not. Let's just add that to the list of stuff
you don't have a CLUE about, shall we?? LOL!!
So your whine about "which god" is moot. The atheist arguments usually
are moot because they originate from a lack of understanding.
Actually, the "atheist arguments" continue to drive you running and
screening from the room because you CAN'T refute them!
What did God say? God said my people perish because of lack of
knowledge.
WHICH god? Actually, NONE of the gods you support ever
"said" any such thing!
Try learning your subject matter heathen.
There goes ANOTHER set of Irony Meters! LOL!!
There are gods. And then, there is the one true GOD.
There isn't even one. Sorry, son.
Now that you know this, there will be no excuse for your refusing God
on the last day when judgment comes to us all.
You will be in the awkward position of having to say "I simply refused
to believe".
LOL!! It's a cute story. For children.

***@U!!
nature bats_last
2010-09-25 01:41:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by AllSeeing-I
On Sep 24, 8:04 am, Erwin Moller
Post by Erwin Moller
Post by u***@att.net
"Vengeance belongeth unto me, I will recompense, saith the Lord." -
(Hebrews 10:30)
This is to believers only. So far I've met and disputed with godless
pagans here and have quite frankly found the experience to be no great
challenge.
That is because you cannot read for comprehension.
You have plenty of challenges.
You simply choose to leave them be.
If you need one at random: Why should anybody take your version of God
more seriously than any other?
for example: Why not Thor?
Post by u***@att.net
So I thought to encourage you believers that might be here.
That is the only thing you do.
Don't pretend you are finished converting the atheists.
[I snipped the rest because it wasn't meant for me.]
Post by u***@att.net
u4z (a son of Zion and Watchman upon the wall)
Now, please tell this ignorant pagan: What does a watchman on the wall
do exactly?
Erwin Moller
--
"There are two ways of constructing a software design: One way is to
make it so simple that there are obviously no deficiencies, and the
other way is to make it so complicated that there are no obvious
deficiencies. The first method is far more difficult."
-- C.A.R. Hoare
Thor was cast down to Earth and forced to live among humans as
punishment.
Oh for sweet Isolde's sake...

Will someone kindly inform this loon that
a movie (and a Dark Horse comic) are
not the Eddas?

I wonder if All-Seeing-I believes that
Captain America punched Hitler in
the face too...

LB's S
Post by AllSeeing-I
Satan and his crew were kicked out of heaven by Michael
and Gabriell and forced to live among humans. Thor is Satan. They are
known in the bible as "the fallen Angels".
Many of the Greek and Roman gods are just other names for the original
Sumer Gods in their respective language. A different name does not
mean a different god.
So your whine about "which god" is moot. The atheist arguments usually
are moot because they originate from a lack of understanding.
What did God say? God said my people perish because of lack of
knowledge.
Try learning your subject matter heathen.
There are gods. And then, there is the one true GOD.
Now that you know this, there will be no excuse for your refusing God
on the last day when judgment comes to us all.
You will be in the awkward position of having to say "I simply refused
to believe".
Virgil
2010-09-25 03:27:05 UTC
Permalink
In article
Post by AllSeeing-I
On Sep 24, 8:04 am, Erwin Moller
Post by Erwin Moller
Post by u***@att.net
"Vengeance belongeth unto me, I will recompense, saith the Lord." -
(Hebrews 10:30)
This is to believers only. So far I've met and disputed with godless
pagans here and have quite frankly found the experience to be no great
challenge.
That is because you cannot read for comprehension.
You have plenty of challenges.
You simply choose to leave them be.
If you need one at random: Why should anybody take your version of God
more seriously than any other?
for example: Why not Thor?
Post by u***@att.net
So I thought to encourage you believers that might be here.
That is the only thing you do.
Don't pretend you are finished converting the atheists.
[I snipped the rest because it wasn't meant for me.]
Post by u***@att.net
u4z (a son of Zion and Watchman upon the wall)
Now, please tell this ignorant pagan: What does a watchman on the wall
do exactly?
Erwin Moller
--
"There are two ways of constructing a software design: One way is to
make it so simple that there are obviously no deficiencies, and the
other way is to make it so complicated that there are no obvious
deficiencies. The first method is far more difficult."
-- C.A.R. Hoare
Thor was cast down to Earth and forced to live among humans as
punishment. Satan and his crew were kicked out of heaven by Michael
and Gabriell and forced to live among humans. Thor is Satan. They are
known in the bible as "the fallen Angels".
Many of the Greek and Roman gods are just other names for the original
Sumer Gods in their respective language. A different name does not
mean a different god.
So your whine about "which god" is moot. The atheist arguments usually
are moot because they originate from a lack of understanding.
What did God say? God said my people perish because of lack of
knowledge.
Try learning your subject matter heathen.
There are gods. And then, there is the one true GOD.
Now that you know this, there will be no excuse for your refusing God
on the last day when judgment comes to us all.
You will be in the awkward position of having to say "I simply refused
to believe".
Actually, those who do not believe in any particular version of "god"
will merely say that they had no reason to believe in any particular
claims for a "god" while there are so many diverse and incompatible
claims to choose from.

And they will be telling the truth!
archie dux
2010-09-25 04:31:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Virgil
In article
Post by AllSeeing-I
On Sep 24, 8:04 am, Erwin Moller
Post by Erwin Moller
Post by u***@att.net
"Vengeance belongeth unto me, I will recompense, saith the Lord." -
(Hebrews 10:30)
This is to believers only. So far I've met and disputed with godless
pagans here and have quite frankly found the experience to be no great
challenge.
That is because you cannot read for comprehension.
You have plenty of challenges.
You simply choose to leave them be.
If you need one at random: Why should anybody take your version of God
more seriously than any other?
for example: Why not Thor?
Post by u***@att.net
So I thought to encourage you believers that might be here.
That is the only thing you do.
Don't pretend you are finished converting the atheists.
[I snipped the rest because it wasn't meant for me.]
Post by u***@att.net
u4z (a son of Zion and Watchman upon the wall)
Now, please tell this ignorant pagan: What does a watchman on the wall
do exactly?
Erwin Moller
--
"There are two ways of constructing a software design: One way is to
make it so simple that there are obviously no deficiencies, and the
other way is to make it so complicated that there are no obvious
deficiencies. The first method is far more difficult."
-- C.A.R. Hoare
Thor was cast down to Earth and forced to live among humans as
punishment. Satan and his crew were kicked out of heaven by Michael
and Gabriell and forced to live among humans. Thor is Satan. They are
known in the bible as "the fallen Angels".
Many of the Greek and Roman gods are just other names for the original
Sumer Gods in their respective language. A different name does not
mean a different god.
So your whine about "which god" is moot. The atheist arguments usually
are moot because they originate from a lack of understanding.
What did God say? God said my people perish because of lack of
knowledge.
Try learning your subject matter heathen.
There are gods. And then, there is the one true GOD.
Now that you know this, there will be no excuse for your refusing God
on the last day when judgment comes to us all.
You will be in the awkward position of having to say "I simply refused
to believe".
Actually, those who do not believe in any particular version of "god"
will merely say that they had no reason to believe in any particular
claims for a "god" while there are so many diverse and incompatible
claims to choose from.
And they will be telling the truth!
That's your plan?

Me, I was thinking of telling God "Um...so sorry, but
in my time, `All-Seeing-I' had bought Your franchise,
and after reading lie after li..."

Whereupon God will interrupt: "ENTER, AND SIT THYSELF
AT MY RIGHT HAND, FOR I MUST FILL THINE EARS
WITH MANY AN APOLOGY FOR THAT FUCKUP"


archie
AllSeeing-I
2010-09-25 10:30:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by archie dux
Post by Virgil
In article
Post by AllSeeing-I
On Sep 24, 8:04 am, Erwin Moller
Post by Erwin Moller
Post by u***@att.net
"Vengeance belongeth unto me, I will recompense, saith the Lord." -
(Hebrews 10:30)
This is to believers only. So far I've met and disputed with godless
pagans here and have quite frankly found the experience to be no great
challenge.
That is because you cannot read for comprehension.
You have plenty of challenges.
You simply choose to leave them be.
If you need one at random: Why should anybody take your version of God
more seriously than any other?
for example: Why not Thor?
Post by u***@att.net
So I thought to encourage you believers that might be here.
That is the only thing you do.
Don't pretend you are finished converting the atheists.
[I snipped the rest because it wasn't meant for me.]
Post by u***@att.net
u4z (a son of Zion and Watchman upon the wall)
Now, please tell this ignorant pagan: What does a watchman on the wall
do exactly?
Erwin Moller
--
"There are two ways of constructing a software design: One way is to
make it so simple that there are obviously no deficiencies, and the
other way is to make it so complicated that there are no obvious
deficiencies. The first method is far more difficult."
-- C.A.R. Hoare
Thor was cast down to Earth and forced to live among humans as
punishment. Satan and his crew were kicked out of heaven by Michael
and Gabriell and forced to live among humans. Thor is Satan. They are
known in the bible as "the fallen Angels".
Many of the Greek and Roman gods are just other names for the original
Sumer Gods in their respective language. A different name does not
mean a different god.
So your whine about "which god" is moot. The atheist arguments usually
are moot because they originate from a lack of understanding.
What did God say? God said my people perish because of lack of
knowledge.
Try learning your subject matter heathen.
There are gods. And then, there is the one true GOD.
Now that you know this, there will be no excuse for your refusing God
on the last day when judgment comes to us all.
You will be in the awkward position of having to say "I simply refused
to believe".
Actually, those who do not believe in any particular version of "god"
will merely say that they had no reason to believe in any particular
claims for a "god" while there are so many diverse and incompatible
claims to choose from.
And they will be telling the truth!
That's your plan?
Me, I was thinking of telling God "Um...so sorry, but
in my time, `All-Seeing-I' had bought Your franchise,
and after reading lie after li..."
Whereupon God will interrupt: "ENTER, AND SIT THYSELF
AT MY RIGHT HAND, FOR I MUST FILL THINE EARS
WITH MANY AN APOLOGY FOR THAT FUCKUP"
Reality:

Upon seeing God archie and virgil fall flat on their face trembling in
fear and begging for mercy.

Weeping and gnashing their teeth, (just as Jesus said they would do),
they ask ASI to beg God for their forgivness. Upon which, ASI reminds
God just how stupid they can be.

Then ASI asks God to please forgive him.


Let's hope it works. Right now it's not looking too good.

After all, it was non-believers that nailed his son to a piece of
wood.
Cory Albrecht
2010-09-25 14:05:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by AllSeeing-I
Post by archie dux
Post by Virgil
In article
On Sep 24, 8:04 am, Erwin Moller
Post by Erwin Moller
Post by u***@att.net
"Vengeance belongeth unto me, I will recompense, saith the Lord." -
(Hebrews 10:30)
This is to believers only. So far I've met and disputed with godless
pagans here and have quite frankly found the experience to be no great
challenge.
That is because you cannot read for comprehension.
You have plenty of challenges.
You simply choose to leave them be.
If you need one at random: Why should anybody take your version of God
more seriously than any other?
for example: Why not Thor?
Post by u***@att.net
So I thought to encourage you believers that might be here.
That is the only thing you do.
Don't pretend you are finished converting the atheists.
[I snipped the rest because it wasn't meant for me.]
Post by u***@att.net
u4z (a son of Zion and Watchman upon the wall)
Now, please tell this ignorant pagan: What does a watchman on the wall
do exactly?
Erwin Moller
--
"There are two ways of constructing a software design: One way is to
make it so simple that there are obviously no deficiencies, and the
other way is to make it so complicated that there are no obvious
deficiencies. The first method is far more difficult."
-- C.A.R. Hoare
Thor was cast down to Earth and forced to live among humans as
punishment. Satan and his crew were kicked out of heaven by Michael
and Gabriell and forced to live among humans. Thor is Satan. They are
known in the bible as "the fallen Angels".
Many of the Greek and Roman gods are just other names for the original
Sumer Gods in their respective language. A different name does not
mean a different god.
So your whine about "which god" is moot. The atheist arguments usually
are moot because they originate from a lack of understanding.
What did God say? God said my people perish because of lack of
knowledge.
Try learning your subject matter heathen.
There are gods. And then, there is the one true GOD.
Now that you know this, there will be no excuse for your refusing God
on the last day when judgment comes to us all.
You will be in the awkward position of having to say "I simply refused
to believe".
Actually, those who do not believe in any particular version of "god"
will merely say that they had no reason to believe in any particular
claims for a "god" while there are so many diverse and incompatible
claims to choose from.
And they will be telling the truth!
That's your plan?
Me, I was thinking of telling God "Um...so sorry, but
in my time, `All-Seeing-I' had bought Your franchise,
and after reading lie after li..."
Whereupon God will interrupt: "ENTER, AND SIT THYSELF
AT MY RIGHT HAND, FOR I MUST FILL THINE EARS
WITH MANY AN APOLOGY FOR THAT FUCKUP"
Upon seeing God archie and virgil fall flat on their face trembling in
fear and begging for mercy.
Weeping and gnashing their teeth, (just as Jesus said they would do),
they ask ASI to beg God for their forgivness. Upon which, ASI reminds
God just how stupid they can be.
Just how fricking arrogant are you that you would have the temerity to
think that YOU could remind God of anything?!?!?

That little slip in your fiction here shows an awful lot about what kind
of person you truly are - and it isn't the spiritual equivalent of the
Good Samaritan.
Post by AllSeeing-I
Then ASI asks God to please forgive him.
Let's hope it works. Right now it's not looking too good.
After all, it was non-believers that nailed his son to a piece of
wood.
Erwin Moller
2010-09-27 08:53:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Cory Albrecht
Post by AllSeeing-I
Post by archie dux
Post by Virgil
In article
On Sep 24, 8:04 am, Erwin Moller
Post by Erwin Moller
Post by u***@att.net
"Vengeance belongeth unto me, I will recompense, saith the Lord." -
(Hebrews 10:30)
This is to believers only. So far I've met and disputed with godless
pagans here and have quite frankly found the experience to be no great
challenge.
That is because you cannot read for comprehension.
You have plenty of challenges.
You simply choose to leave them be.
If you need one at random: Why should anybody take your version of God
more seriously than any other?
for example: Why not Thor?
Post by u***@att.net
So I thought to encourage you believers that might be here.
That is the only thing you do.
Don't pretend you are finished converting the atheists.
[I snipped the rest because it wasn't meant for me.]
Post by u***@att.net
u4z (a son of Zion and Watchman upon the wall)
Now, please tell this ignorant pagan: What does a watchman on the wall
do exactly?
Erwin Moller
--
"There are two ways of constructing a software design: One way is to
make it so simple that there are obviously no deficiencies, and the
other way is to make it so complicated that there are no obvious
deficiencies. The first method is far more difficult."
-- C.A.R. Hoare
Thor was cast down to Earth and forced to live among humans as
punishment. Satan and his crew were kicked out of heaven by Michael
and Gabriell and forced to live among humans. Thor is Satan. They are
known in the bible as "the fallen Angels".
Many of the Greek and Roman gods are just other names for the original
Sumer Gods in their respective language. A different name does not
mean a different god.
So your whine about "which god" is moot. The atheist arguments usually
are moot because they originate from a lack of understanding.
What did God say? God said my people perish because of lack of
knowledge.
Try learning your subject matter heathen.
There are gods. And then, there is the one true GOD.
Now that you know this, there will be no excuse for your refusing God
on the last day when judgment comes to us all.
You will be in the awkward position of having to say "I simply refused
to believe".
Actually, those who do not believe in any particular version of "god"
will merely say that they had no reason to believe in any particular
claims for a "god" while there are so many diverse and incompatible
claims to choose from.
And they will be telling the truth!
That's your plan?
Me, I was thinking of telling God "Um...so sorry, but
in my time, `All-Seeing-I' had bought Your franchise,
and after reading lie after li..."
Whereupon God will interrupt: "ENTER, AND SIT THYSELF
AT MY RIGHT HAND, FOR I MUST FILL THINE EARS
WITH MANY AN APOLOGY FOR THAT FUCKUP"
Upon seeing God archie and virgil fall flat on their face trembling in
fear and begging for mercy.
Weeping and gnashing their teeth, (just as Jesus said they would do),
they ask ASI to beg God for their forgivness. Upon which, ASI reminds
God just how stupid they can be.
Just how fricking arrogant are you that you would have the temerity to
think that YOU could remind God of anything?!?!?
That little slip in your fiction here shows an awful lot about what kind
of person you truly are - and it isn't the spiritual equivalent of the
Good Samaritan.
I suggest from now on we write Madman with a capital M, and god without
a capital. Just to put things into perspective.
Post by Cory Albrecht
Post by AllSeeing-I
Then ASI asks God to please forgive him.
Let's hope it works. Right now it's not looking too good.
After all, it was non-believers that nailed his son to a piece of
wood.
No Madman, that were religious folk, like you, according to your holy
booklet.
Maybe they were wearing hats of the wrong color, or prayed to God on the
wrong days, but they were religious folk.

Erwin Moller
--
"There are two ways of constructing a software design: One way is to
make it so simple that there are obviously no deficiencies, and the
other way is to make it so complicated that there are no obvious
deficiencies. The first method is far more difficult."
-- C.A.R. Hoare
Ralph
2010-09-25 14:19:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by AllSeeing-I
Post by archie dux
Post by Virgil
In article
On Sep 24, 8:04 am, Erwin Moller
Post by Erwin Moller
Post by u***@att.net
"Vengeance belongeth unto me, I will recompense, saith the Lord." -
(Hebrews 10:30)
This is to believers only. So far I've met and disputed with godless
pagans here and have quite frankly found the experience to be no great
challenge.
That is because you cannot read for comprehension.
You have plenty of challenges.
You simply choose to leave them be.
If you need one at random: Why should anybody take your version of God
more seriously than any other?
for example: Why not Thor?
Post by u***@att.net
So I thought to encourage you believers that might be here.
That is the only thing you do.
Don't pretend you are finished converting the atheists.
[I snipped the rest because it wasn't meant for me.]
Post by u***@att.net
u4z (a son of Zion and Watchman upon the wall)
Now, please tell this ignorant pagan: What does a watchman on the wall
do exactly?
Erwin Moller
--
"There are two ways of constructing a software design: One way is to
make it so simple that there are obviously no deficiencies, and the
other way is to make it so complicated that there are no obvious
deficiencies. The first method is far more difficult."
-- C.A.R. Hoare
Thor was cast down to Earth and forced to live among humans as
punishment. Satan and his crew were kicked out of heaven by Michael
and Gabriell and forced to live among humans. Thor is Satan. They are
known in the bible as "the fallen Angels".
Many of the Greek and Roman gods are just other names for the original
Sumer Gods in their respective language. A different name does not
mean a different god.
So your whine about "which god" is moot. The atheist arguments usually
are moot because they originate from a lack of understanding.
What did God say? God said my people perish because of lack of
knowledge.
Try learning your subject matter heathen.
There are gods. And then, there is the one true GOD.
Now that you know this, there will be no excuse for your refusing God
on the last day when judgment comes to us all.
You will be in the awkward position of having to say "I simply refused
to believe".
Actually, those who do not believe in any particular version of "god"
will merely say that they had no reason to believe in any particular
claims for a "god" while there are so many diverse and incompatible
claims to choose from.
And they will be telling the truth!
That's your plan?
Me, I was thinking of telling God "Um...so sorry, but
in my time, `All-Seeing-I' had bought Your franchise,
and after reading lie after li..."
Whereupon God will interrupt: "ENTER, AND SIT THYSELF
AT MY RIGHT HAND, FOR I MUST FILL THINE EARS
WITH MANY AN APOLOGY FOR THAT FUCKUP"
Upon seeing God archie and virgil fall flat on their face trembling in
fear and begging for mercy.
Weeping and gnashing their teeth, (just as Jesus said they would do),
they ask ASI to beg God for their forgivness. Upon which, ASI reminds
God just how stupid they can be.
Then ASI asks God to please forgive him.
Let's hope it works. Right now it's not looking too good.
After all, it was non-believers that nailed his son to a piece of
wood.
What a crock of shit. You really are so stupid that you don't realize
you are stupid.
Free Lunch
2010-09-25 14:49:53 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 25 Sep 2010 03:30:36 -0700 (PDT), AllSeeing-I
...
Post by AllSeeing-I
Post by archie dux
Post by Virgil
Actually, those who do not believe in any particular version of "god"
will merely say that they had no reason to believe in any particular
claims for a "god" while there are so many diverse and incompatible
claims to choose from.
And they will be telling the truth!
That's your plan?
Me, I was thinking of telling God "Um...so sorry, but
in my time, `All-Seeing-I' had bought Your franchise,
and after reading lie after li..."
Whereupon God will interrupt: "ENTER, AND SIT THYSELF
AT MY RIGHT HAND, FOR I MUST FILL THINE EARS
WITH MANY AN APOLOGY FOR THAT FUCKUP"
Upon seeing God archie and virgil fall flat on their face trembling in
fear and begging for mercy.
You really do worship the lies you tell about religion.
Post by AllSeeing-I
Weeping and gnashing their teeth, (just as Jesus said they would do),
they ask ASI to beg God for their forgivness. Upon which, ASI reminds
God just how stupid they can be.
You mock the god you claim to worship. You worship only your foolish,
ignorant lies. You call God a fraud with your teachings.
Post by AllSeeing-I
Then ASI asks God to please forgive him.
Why would the god you preach forgive you for the insults you heaved at
him? Your story is that he murders billions. Why would he forgive you?
Post by AllSeeing-I
Let's hope it works. Right now it's not looking too good.
Luckily for you, there's no reason to think that any gods exist,
particularly the one you keep preaching on about.
Post by AllSeeing-I
After all, it was non-believers that nailed his son to a piece of
wood.
No evidence supports your claim.

You've lied to us too often for us to believe anything you claim unless
you provide evidence to back it up.
Bob LeChevalier
2010-09-25 15:55:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by AllSeeing-I
Weeping and gnashing their teeth, (just as Jesus said they would do),
they ask ASI to beg God for their forgivness. Upon which, ASI reminds
God just how stupid they can be.
Then ASI asks God to please forgive him.
And God will answer to ASI:

<1 Judge not, that ye be not judged.
<2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what
< measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.
<3 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but
< considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?
<4 Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out
< of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye?
<5 Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and
< then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's
< eye.

-----
Have you kept kosher? Stoned your insolent children to death?
Followed the rest of the 631 commandments?

<3 And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his
< commandments.
<4 He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a
< liar, and the truth is not in him.
<5 But whoso keepeth his word, in him verily is the love of God
< perfected: hereby know we that we are in him.
<6 He that saith he abideth in him ought himself also so to walk, even
< as he walked.

----

<19 Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and
< cast into the fire.
<20 Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.
<21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the
< kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is
< in heaven.
<22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not
< prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in
< thy name done many wonderful works?
<23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from
< me, ye that work iniquity.

lojbab
---
Bob LeChevalier - artificial linguist; genealogist
***@lojban.org Lojban language www.lojban.org
u***@att.net
2010-09-26 00:09:15 UTC
Permalink
You meant 613 not 631. Your mistake.

Not only that but Jesus said there were only 2. Your mistake again.

You're well on you way to reprobatism I see.

u4z
Post by Bob LeChevalier
Post by AllSeeing-I
Weeping and gnashing their teeth, (just as Jesus said they would do),
they ask ASI to beg God for their forgivness. Upon which, ASI reminds
God just how stupid they can be.
Then ASI asks God to please forgive him.
<1 Judge not, that ye be not judged.
<2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what
< measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.
<3 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but
< considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?
<4 Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out
< of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye?
<5 Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and
< then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's
< eye.
-----
Have you kept kosher? Stoned your insolent children to death?
Followed the rest of the 631 commandments?
<3 And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his
< commandments.
<4 He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a
< liar, and the truth is not in him.
<5 But whoso keepeth his word, in him verily is the love of God
< perfected: hereby know we that we are in him.
<6 He that saith he abideth in him ought himself also so to walk, even
< as he walked.
----
<19 Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and
< cast into the fire.
<20 Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.
<21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the
< kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is
< in heaven.
<22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not
< prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in
< thy name done many wonderful works?
<23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from
< me, ye that work iniquity.
lojbab
---
Bob LeChevalier - artificial linguist; genealogist
Bob LeChevalier
2010-09-26 02:43:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by u***@att.net
You meant 613 not 631. Your mistake.
Typo
Post by u***@att.net
Not only that but Jesus said there were only 2.
No, he didn't. He said that the two summed up the law, but He also
said that not one jot or tittle of the law had passed away.

lojbab
---
Bob LeChevalier - artificial linguist; genealogist
***@lojban.org Lojban language www.lojban.org
u***@att.net
2010-09-27 22:57:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bob LeChevalier
Post by u***@att.net
You meant 613 not 631. Your mistake.
Typo
Post by u***@att.net
Not only that but Jesus said there were only 2.
No, he didn't. He said that the two summed up the law, but He also
said that not one jot or tittle of the law had passed away.
lojbab
You are speaking of the jesus you think evolved from an ape... right?

u4z
DanielSan
2010-09-27 23:02:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by u***@att.net
Post by Bob LeChevalier
Post by u***@att.net
You meant 613 not 631. Your mistake.
Typo
Post by u***@att.net
Not only that but Jesus said there were only 2.
No, he didn't. He said that the two summed up the law, but He also
said that not one jot or tittle of the law had passed away.
lojbab
You are speaking of the jesus you think evolved from an ape... right?
Evolved from an ape? Care to define "ape"?
--
DanielSan -- alt.atheism #2226
---------------------------------------------
EAC Warden - Occam Asylum
---------------------------------------------
"Some experts believe that God used something
like a nuclear bomb to destoy Sodom." --Jason
---------------------------------------------
u***@att.net
2010-09-27 23:28:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by DanielSan
Post by u***@att.net
Post by Bob LeChevalier
Post by u***@att.net
You meant 613 not 631. Your mistake.
Typo
Post by u***@att.net
Not only that but Jesus said there were only 2.
No, he didn't. He said that the two summed up the law, but He also
said that not one jot or tittle of the law had passed away.
lojbab
You are speaking of the jesus you think evolved from an ape... right?
Evolved from an ape? Care to define "ape"?
For clarification purposes please verify that you do not know the
meaning of "ape".

u4z
DanielSan
2010-09-27 23:43:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by u***@att.net
Post by DanielSan
Post by u***@att.net
Post by Bob LeChevalier
Post by u***@att.net
You meant 613 not 631. Your mistake.
Typo
Post by u***@att.net
Not only that but Jesus said there were only 2.
No, he didn't. He said that the two summed up the law, but He also
said that not one jot or tittle of the law had passed away.
lojbab
You are speaking of the jesus you think evolved from an ape... right?
Evolved from an ape? Care to define "ape"?
For clarification purposes please verify that you do not know the
meaning of "ape".
I know the meaning of ape. It seems like you don't. So, please,
provide your definition. thanks.
--
DanielSan -- alt.atheism #2226
---------------------------------------------
EAC Warden - Occam Asylum
---------------------------------------------
"Some experts believe that God used something
like a nuclear bomb to destoy Sodom." --Jason
---------------------------------------------
u***@att.net
2010-09-27 23:57:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by DanielSan
Post by u***@att.net
Post by DanielSan
Post by u***@att.net
Post by Bob LeChevalier
Post by u***@att.net
You meant 613 not 631. Your mistake.
Typo
Post by u***@att.net
Not only that but Jesus said there were only 2.
No, he didn't. He said that the two summed up the law, but He also
said that not one jot or tittle of the law had passed away.
lojbab
You are speaking of the jesus you think evolved from an ape... right?
Evolved from an ape? Care to define "ape"?
For clarification purposes please verify that you do not know the
meaning of "ape".
I know the meaning of ape. It seems like you don't. So, please,
provide your definition. thanks.
Be advised that this thread is for believers (see "subject"). Please
verify that you do not understand the difference between an "ape" and
a "human" or else define either proving your status as an unbeliever.

u4z
DanielSan
2010-09-27 23:59:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by u***@att.net
Post by DanielSan
Post by u***@att.net
Post by DanielSan
Post by u***@att.net
Post by Bob LeChevalier
Post by u***@att.net
You meant 613 not 631. Your mistake.
Typo
Post by u***@att.net
Not only that but Jesus said there were only 2.
No, he didn't. He said that the two summed up the law, but He also
said that not one jot or tittle of the law had passed away.
lojbab
You are speaking of the jesus you think evolved from an ape... right?
Evolved from an ape? Care to define "ape"?
For clarification purposes please verify that you do not know the
meaning of "ape".
I know the meaning of ape. It seems like you don't. So, please,
provide your definition. thanks.
Be advised that this thread is for believers (see "subject").
Yet it's being posted to alt.atheism. Just a heads up.
Post by u***@att.net
Please
verify that you do not understand the difference between an "ape" and
a "human" or else define either proving your status as an unbeliever.
I am an unbeliever. But that is irrelevant to whether you know what an
"ape" is or not.
--
DanielSan -- alt.atheism #2226
---------------------------------------------
EAC Warden - Occam Asylum
---------------------------------------------
"Some experts believe that God used something
like a nuclear bomb to destoy Sodom." --Jason
---------------------------------------------
u***@att.net
2010-09-28 00:44:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by DanielSan
Post by u***@att.net
Post by DanielSan
Post by u***@att.net
Post by DanielSan
Post by u***@att.net
Post by Bob LeChevalier
Post by u***@att.net
You meant 613 not 631. Your mistake.
Typo
Post by u***@att.net
Not only that but Jesus said there were only 2.
No, he didn't. He said that the two summed up the law, but He also
said that not one jot or tittle of the law had passed away.
lojbab
You are speaking of the jesus you think evolved from an ape... right?
Evolved from an ape? Care to define "ape"?
For clarification purposes please verify that you do not know the
meaning of "ape".
I know the meaning of ape. It seems like you don't. So, please,
provide your definition. thanks.
Be advised that this thread is for believers (see "subject").
Yet it's being posted to alt.atheism. Just a heads up.
Post by u***@att.net
Please
verify that you do not understand the difference between an "ape" and
a "human" or else define either proving your status as an unbeliever.
I am an unbeliever. But that is irrelevant to whether you know what an
"ape" is or not.
There are ATHEISTS then there are atheists. I have met both. Those
who fall into the category of false prophets are dammed, and those who
have honestly never known better are better off....

2Peter 2:19 While they promise them liberty, they themselves are
the servants of corruption: for of whom a man is overcome, of the same
is he brought in bondage.

2Peter 2:20 For if after they have escaped the pollutions of the
world through the knowledge of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, they
are again entangled therein, and overcome, the latter end is worse
with them than the beginning.

2Peter 2:21 For it had been better for them not to have known the
way of righteousness, than, after they have known it, to turn from the
holy commandment delivered unto them.

So many so called "atheists" are actually x-christians who are doomed,
and who are playing games even though their ultimate destiny is hell
itself, while OTOH I hold hope that a few so called "atheists" may
actually be among those who've never for some reason or another, been
subjected to the truth of God.

No matter. The gates of hell shall not stop me, having contact with
God myself...

Matthew 16:17-18 And Jesus answered and said unto him, "Blessed
art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto
thee, but my Father which is in heaven. And I say also unto thee, That
thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the
gates of hell shall not prevail against it". - Jesus

The hellbent 'atheist' cannot and will not ever be able to comprehend
how it is that the Kingdom of God is directed by revelation from God
Himself.

Ultimately, this is good news. In fact it is the best of good news
possible in that via repentance all men everywhere have equal access
to God and the Kingdom of God.

Meanwhile despots are convinced that they can dupe you into being
slaves in the kingdom of men.

u4z
DanielSan
2010-09-28 00:46:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by DanielSan
Post by u***@att.net
Post by DanielSan
Post by u***@att.net
Post by DanielSan
Post by u***@att.net
Post by Bob LeChevalier
Post by u***@att.net
You meant 613 not 631. Your mistake.
Typo
Post by u***@att.net
Not only that but Jesus said there were only 2.
No, he didn't. He said that the two summed up the law, but He also
said that not one jot or tittle of the law had passed away.
lojbab
You are speaking of the jesus you think evolved from an ape... right?
Evolved from an ape? Care to define "ape"?
For clarification purposes please verify that you do not know the
meaning of "ape".
I know the meaning of ape. It seems like you don't. So, please,
provide your definition. thanks.
Be advised that this thread is for believers (see "subject").
Yet it's being posted to alt.atheism. Just a heads up.
Post by u***@att.net
Please
verify that you do not understand the difference between an "ape" and
a "human" or else define either proving your status as an unbeliever.
I am an unbeliever. But that is irrelevant to whether you know what an
"ape" is or not.
There*SNIP*
Blah, blah, blah. Do you know what an "ape" is or not?
--
DanielSan -- alt.atheism #2226
---------------------------------------------
EAC Warden - Occam Asylum
---------------------------------------------
"Some experts believe that God used something
like a nuclear bomb to destoy Sodom." --Jason
---------------------------------------------
u***@att.net
2010-09-28 01:44:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by DanielSan
Post by DanielSan
Post by u***@att.net
Post by DanielSan
Post by u***@att.net
Post by DanielSan
Post by u***@att.net
Post by Bob LeChevalier
Post by u***@att.net
You meant 613 not 631. Your mistake.
Typo
Post by u***@att.net
Not only that but Jesus said there were only 2.
No, he didn't. He said that the two summed up the law, but He also
said that not one jot or tittle of the law had passed away.
lojbab
You are speaking of the jesus you think evolved from an ape... right?
Evolved from an ape? Care to define "ape"?
For clarification purposes please verify that you do not know the
meaning of "ape".
I know the meaning of ape. It seems like you don't. So, please,
provide your definition. thanks.
Be advised that this thread is for believers (see "subject").
Yet it's being posted to alt.atheism. Just a heads up.
Post by u***@att.net
Please
verify that you do not understand the difference between an "ape" and
a "human" or else define either proving your status as an unbeliever.
I am an unbeliever. But that is irrelevant to whether you know what an
"ape" is or not.
There*SNIP*
Blah, blah, blah. Do you know what an "ape" is or not?
Insistent feller ain't ye?

Ok I will explain what evolutionists lie about. They say 'common
ancestor' became both an ape and a human. By default they are saying
that a rat is the "common ancestor" of the common ancestor since the
first 'common ancestor' is assumed to be a squirrel type creature.

Now. It's all completely absurd of course seeing that you must have a
'common ancestor' in place for every billion of years where a leap
occurred. (reptile to mammal, fish to reptile, amphibian to reptile,
amoeba to amphibian, bacteria to amoeba, and last but not least how
about the billions upon billions of years it took for chemical soup to
accidentally and randomly turn into bacterial DNA)

So an "ape" is a creature that has swallowed all of the above
deceptions of evolutionists hook, line and sinker and whines day in
and day out the following..... "prove god to me".

u4z
DanielSan
2010-09-28 01:55:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by u***@att.net
Post by DanielSan
Post by DanielSan
Post by u***@att.net
Post by DanielSan
Post by u***@att.net
Post by DanielSan
Post by u***@att.net
Post by Bob LeChevalier
Post by u***@att.net
You meant 613 not 631. Your mistake.
Typo
Post by u***@att.net
Not only that but Jesus said there were only 2.
No, he didn't. He said that the two summed up the law, but He also
said that not one jot or tittle of the law had passed away.
lojbab
You are speaking of the jesus you think evolved from an ape... right?
Evolved from an ape? Care to define "ape"?
For clarification purposes please verify that you do not know the
meaning of "ape".
I know the meaning of ape. It seems like you don't. So, please,
provide your definition. thanks.
Be advised that this thread is for believers (see "subject").
Yet it's being posted to alt.atheism. Just a heads up.
Post by u***@att.net
Please
verify that you do not understand the difference between an "ape" and
a "human" or else define either proving your status as an unbeliever.
I am an unbeliever. But that is irrelevant to whether you know what an
"ape" is or not.
There*SNIP*
Blah, blah, blah. Do you know what an "ape" is or not?
Insistent feller ain't ye?
Ok I will explain what evolutionists lie about. They say 'common
ancestor' became both an ape and a human. By default they are saying
that a rat is the "common ancestor" of the common ancestor since the
first 'common ancestor' is assumed to be a squirrel type creature.
Now. It's all completely absurd of course seeing that you must have a
'common ancestor' in place for every billion of years where a leap
occurred. (reptile to mammal, fish to reptile, amphibian to reptile,
amoeba to amphibian, bacteria to amoeba, and last but not least how
about the billions upon billions of years it took for chemical soup to
accidentally and randomly turn into bacterial DNA)
So an "ape" is a creature that has swallowed all of the above
deceptions of evolutionists hook, line and sinker and whines day in
and day out the following..... "prove god to me".
So, "ape", not being a modern great ape like humans and gorillas are, is
our ancestor. It was confusing.

Now, what is "completely absurd"? And what "leap"? Are you suggesting
that modern animal "leaps" to another modern animal? If so, you've got
evolution all wrong.
--
DanielSan -- alt.atheism #2226
---------------------------------------------
EAC Warden - Occam Asylum
---------------------------------------------
"Some experts believe that God used something
like a nuclear bomb to destoy Sodom." --Jason
---------------------------------------------
u***@att.net
2010-09-28 02:02:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by DanielSan
Post by u***@att.net
Post by DanielSan
Post by DanielSan
Post by u***@att.net
Post by DanielSan
Post by u***@att.net
Post by DanielSan
Post by u***@att.net
Post by Bob LeChevalier
Post by u***@att.net
You meant 613 not 631. Your mistake.
Typo
Post by u***@att.net
Not only that but Jesus said there were only 2.
No, he didn't. He said that the two summed up the law, but He also
said that not one jot or tittle of the law had passed away.
lojbab
You are speaking of the jesus you think evolved from an ape... right?
Evolved from an ape? Care to define "ape"?
For clarification purposes please verify that you do not know the
meaning of "ape".
I know the meaning of ape. It seems like you don't. So, please,
provide your definition. thanks.
Be advised that this thread is for believers (see "subject").
Yet it's being posted to alt.atheism. Just a heads up.
Post by u***@att.net
Please
verify that you do not understand the difference between an "ape" and
a "human" or else define either proving your status as an unbeliever.
I am an unbeliever. But that is irrelevant to whether you know what an
"ape" is or not.
There*SNIP*
Blah, blah, blah. Do you know what an "ape" is or not?
Insistent feller ain't ye?
Ok I will explain what evolutionists lie about. They say 'common
ancestor' became both an ape and a human. By default they are saying
that a rat is the "common ancestor" of the common ancestor since the
first 'common ancestor' is assumed to be a squirrel type creature.
Now. It's all completely absurd of course seeing that you must have a
'common ancestor' in place for every billion of years where a leap
occurred. (reptile to mammal, fish to reptile, amphibian to reptile,
amoeba to amphibian, bacteria to amoeba, and last but not least how
about the billions upon billions of years it took for chemical soup to
accidentally and randomly turn into bacterial DNA)
So an "ape" is a creature that has swallowed all of the above
deceptions of evolutionists hook, line and sinker and whines day in
and day out the following..... "prove god to me".
So, "ape", not being a modern great ape like humans and gorillas are, is
our ancestor. It was confusing.
Now, what is "completely absurd"? And what "leap"? Are you suggesting
that modern animal "leaps" to another modern animal? If so, you've got
evolution all wrong.
Ok. Let's hear your version beginning with the initial onset of the
universe itself.

u4z
DanielSan
2010-09-28 02:07:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by u***@att.net
Post by DanielSan
Post by u***@att.net
Post by DanielSan
Post by DanielSan
Post by u***@att.net
Post by DanielSan
Post by u***@att.net
Post by DanielSan
Post by u***@att.net
Post by Bob LeChevalier
Post by u***@att.net
You meant 613 not 631. Your mistake.
Typo
Post by u***@att.net
Not only that but Jesus said there were only 2.
No, he didn't. He said that the two summed up the law, but He also
said that not one jot or tittle of the law had passed away.
lojbab
You are speaking of the jesus you think evolved from an ape... right?
Evolved from an ape? Care to define "ape"?
For clarification purposes please verify that you do not know the
meaning of "ape".
I know the meaning of ape. It seems like you don't. So, please,
provide your definition. thanks.
Be advised that this thread is for believers (see "subject").
Yet it's being posted to alt.atheism. Just a heads up.
Post by u***@att.net
Please
verify that you do not understand the difference between an "ape" and
a "human" or else define either proving your status as an unbeliever.
I am an unbeliever. But that is irrelevant to whether you know what an
"ape" is or not.
There*SNIP*
Blah, blah, blah. Do you know what an "ape" is or not?
Insistent feller ain't ye?
Ok I will explain what evolutionists lie about. They say 'common
ancestor' became both an ape and a human. By default they are saying
that a rat is the "common ancestor" of the common ancestor since the
first 'common ancestor' is assumed to be a squirrel type creature.
Now. It's all completely absurd of course seeing that you must have a
'common ancestor' in place for every billion of years where a leap
occurred. (reptile to mammal, fish to reptile, amphibian to reptile,
amoeba to amphibian, bacteria to amoeba, and last but not least how
about the billions upon billions of years it took for chemical soup to
accidentally and randomly turn into bacterial DNA)
So an "ape" is a creature that has swallowed all of the above
deceptions of evolutionists hook, line and sinker and whines day in
and day out the following..... "prove god to me".
So, "ape", not being a modern great ape like humans and gorillas are, is
our ancestor. It was confusing.
Now, what is "completely absurd"? And what "leap"? Are you suggesting
that modern animal "leaps" to another modern animal? If so, you've got
evolution all wrong.
Ok. Let's hear your version beginning with the initial onset of the
universe itself.
No.
--
DanielSan -- alt.atheism #2226
---------------------------------------------
EAC Warden - Occam Asylum
---------------------------------------------
"Some experts believe that God used something
like a nuclear bomb to destoy Sodom." --Jason
---------------------------------------------
u***@att.net
2010-09-28 02:29:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by u***@att.net
Post by DanielSan
Post by u***@att.net
Post by DanielSan
Post by DanielSan
Post by u***@att.net
Post by DanielSan
Post by u***@att.net
Post by DanielSan
Post by u***@att.net
Post by Bob LeChevalier
Post by u***@att.net
You meant 613 not 631. Your mistake.
Typo
Post by u***@att.net
Not only that but Jesus said there were only 2.
No, he didn't. He said that the two summed up the law, but He also
said that not one jot or tittle of the law had passed away.
lojbab
You are speaking of the jesus you think evolved from an ape... right?
Evolved from an ape? Care to define "ape"?
For clarification purposes please verify that you do not know the
meaning of "ape".
I know the meaning of ape. It seems like you don't. So, please,
provide your definition. thanks.
Be advised that this thread is for believers (see "subject").
Yet it's being posted to alt.atheism. Just a heads up.
Post by u***@att.net
Please
verify that you do not understand the difference between an "ape" and
a "human" or else define either proving your status as an unbeliever.
I am an unbeliever. But that is irrelevant to whether you know what an
"ape" is or not.
There*SNIP*
Blah, blah, blah. Do you know what an "ape" is or not?
Insistent feller ain't ye?
Ok I will explain what evolutionists lie about. They say 'common
ancestor' became both an ape and a human. By default they are saying
that a rat is the "common ancestor" of the common ancestor since the
first 'common ancestor' is assumed to be a squirrel type creature.
Now. It's all completely absurd of course seeing that you must have a
'common ancestor' in place for every billion of years where a leap
occurred. (reptile to mammal, fish to reptile, amphibian to reptile,
amoeba to amphibian, bacteria to amoeba, and last but not least how
about the billions upon billions of years it took for chemical soup to
accidentally and randomly turn into bacterial DNA)
So an "ape" is a creature that has swallowed all of the above
deceptions of evolutionists hook, line and sinker and whines day in
and day out the following..... "prove god to me".
So, "ape", not being a modern great ape like humans and gorillas are, is
our ancestor. It was confusing.
Now, what is "completely absurd"? And what "leap"? Are you suggesting
that modern animal "leaps" to another modern animal? If so, you've got
evolution all wrong.
Ok. Let's hear your version beginning with the initial onset of the
universe itself.
No.
Good choice. It's impossible to explain mathematically, how at the
beginning... infinite mass occupied a finite volume.

u4z
DanielSan
2010-09-28 02:31:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by u***@att.net
Post by u***@att.net
Post by DanielSan
Post by u***@att.net
Post by DanielSan
Post by DanielSan
Post by u***@att.net
Post by DanielSan
Post by u***@att.net
Post by DanielSan
Post by u***@att.net
Post by Bob LeChevalier
Post by u***@att.net
You meant 613 not 631. Your mistake.
Typo
Post by u***@att.net
Not only that but Jesus said there were only 2.
No, he didn't. He said that the two summed up the law, but He also
said that not one jot or tittle of the law had passed away.
lojbab
You are speaking of the jesus you think evolved from an ape... right?
Evolved from an ape? Care to define "ape"?
For clarification purposes please verify that you do not know the
meaning of "ape".
I know the meaning of ape. It seems like you don't. So, please,
provide your definition. thanks.
Be advised that this thread is for believers (see "subject").
Yet it's being posted to alt.atheism. Just a heads up.
Post by u***@att.net
Please
verify that you do not understand the difference between an "ape" and
a "human" or else define either proving your status as an unbeliever.
I am an unbeliever. But that is irrelevant to whether you know what an
"ape" is or not.
There*SNIP*
Blah, blah, blah. Do you know what an "ape" is or not?
Insistent feller ain't ye?
Ok I will explain what evolutionists lie about. They say 'common
ancestor' became both an ape and a human. By default they are saying
that a rat is the "common ancestor" of the common ancestor since the
first 'common ancestor' is assumed to be a squirrel type creature.
Now. It's all completely absurd of course seeing that you must have a
'common ancestor' in place for every billion of years where a leap
occurred. (reptile to mammal, fish to reptile, amphibian to reptile,
amoeba to amphibian, bacteria to amoeba, and last but not least how
about the billions upon billions of years it took for chemical soup to
accidentally and randomly turn into bacterial DNA)
So an "ape" is a creature that has swallowed all of the above
deceptions of evolutionists hook, line and sinker and whines day in
and day out the following..... "prove god to me".
So, "ape", not being a modern great ape like humans and gorillas are, is
our ancestor. It was confusing.
Now, what is "completely absurd"? And what "leap"? Are you suggesting
that modern animal "leaps" to another modern animal? If so, you've got
evolution all wrong.
Ok. Let's hear your version beginning with the initial onset of the
universe itself.
No.
Good choice. It's impossible to explain mathematically, how at the
beginning... infinite mass occupied a finite volume.
Infinite mass?
--
DanielSan -- alt.atheism #2226
---------------------------------------------
EAC Warden - Occam Asylum
---------------------------------------------
"Some experts believe that God used something
like a nuclear bomb to destoy Sodom." --Jason
---------------------------------------------
u***@att.net
2010-09-28 03:18:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by DanielSan
Post by u***@att.net
Post by u***@att.net
Post by DanielSan
Post by u***@att.net
Post by DanielSan
Post by DanielSan
Post by u***@att.net
Post by DanielSan
Post by u***@att.net
Post by DanielSan
Post by u***@att.net
Post by Bob LeChevalier
Post by u***@att.net
You meant 613 not 631. Your mistake.
Typo
Post by u***@att.net
Not only that but Jesus said there were only 2.
No, he didn't. He said that the two summed up the law, but He also
said that not one jot or tittle of the law had passed away.
lojbab
You are speaking of the jesus you think evolved from an ape... right?
Evolved from an ape? Care to define "ape"?
For clarification purposes please verify that you do not know the
meaning of "ape".
I know the meaning of ape. It seems like you don't. So, please,
provide your definition. thanks.
Be advised that this thread is for believers (see "subject").
Yet it's being posted to alt.atheism. Just a heads up.
Post by u***@att.net
Please
verify that you do not understand the difference between an "ape" and
a "human" or else define either proving your status as an unbeliever.
I am an unbeliever. But that is irrelevant to whether you know what an
"ape" is or not.
There*SNIP*
Blah, blah, blah. Do you know what an "ape" is or not?
Insistent feller ain't ye?
Ok I will explain what evolutionists lie about. They say 'common
ancestor' became both an ape and a human. By default they are saying
that a rat is the "common ancestor" of the common ancestor since the
first 'common ancestor' is assumed to be a squirrel type creature.
Now. It's all completely absurd of course seeing that you must have a
'common ancestor' in place for every billion of years where a leap
occurred. (reptile to mammal, fish to reptile, amphibian to reptile,
amoeba to amphibian, bacteria to amoeba, and last but not least how
about the billions upon billions of years it took for chemical soup to
accidentally and randomly turn into bacterial DNA)
So an "ape" is a creature that has swallowed all of the above
deceptions of evolutionists hook, line and sinker and whines day in
and day out the following..... "prove god to me".
So, "ape", not being a modern great ape like humans and gorillas are, is
our ancestor. It was confusing.
Now, what is "completely absurd"? And what "leap"? Are you suggesting
that modern animal "leaps" to another modern animal? If so, you've got
evolution all wrong.
Ok. Let's hear your version beginning with the initial onset of the
universe itself.
No.
Good choice. It's impossible to explain mathematically, how at the
beginning... infinite mass occupied a finite volume.
Infinite mass?
Yes. Black holes a.k.a. "dark matter" defy Einstein and all known
physics.


u4z
DanielSan
2010-09-28 04:35:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by u***@att.net
Post by DanielSan
Post by u***@att.net
Post by u***@att.net
Post by DanielSan
Post by u***@att.net
Post by DanielSan
Post by DanielSan
Post by u***@att.net
Post by DanielSan
Post by u***@att.net
Post by DanielSan
Post by u***@att.net
Post by Bob LeChevalier
Post by u***@att.net
You meant 613 not 631. Your mistake.
Typo
Post by u***@att.net
Not only that but Jesus said there were only 2.
No, he didn't. He said that the two summed up the law, but He also
said that not one jot or tittle of the law had passed away.
lojbab
You are speaking of the jesus you think evolved from an ape... right?
Evolved from an ape? Care to define "ape"?
For clarification purposes please verify that you do not know the
meaning of "ape".
I know the meaning of ape. It seems like you don't. So, please,
provide your definition. thanks.
Be advised that this thread is for believers (see "subject").
Yet it's being posted to alt.atheism. Just a heads up.
Post by u***@att.net
Please
verify that you do not understand the difference between an "ape" and
a "human" or else define either proving your status as an unbeliever.
I am an unbeliever. But that is irrelevant to whether you know what an
"ape" is or not.
There*SNIP*
Blah, blah, blah. Do you know what an "ape" is or not?
Insistent feller ain't ye?
Ok I will explain what evolutionists lie about. They say 'common
ancestor' became both an ape and a human. By default they are saying
that a rat is the "common ancestor" of the common ancestor since the
first 'common ancestor' is assumed to be a squirrel type creature.
Now. It's all completely absurd of course seeing that you must have a
'common ancestor' in place for every billion of years where a leap
occurred. (reptile to mammal, fish to reptile, amphibian to reptile,
amoeba to amphibian, bacteria to amoeba, and last but not least how
about the billions upon billions of years it took for chemical soup to
accidentally and randomly turn into bacterial DNA)
So an "ape" is a creature that has swallowed all of the above
deceptions of evolutionists hook, line and sinker and whines day in
and day out the following..... "prove god to me".
So, "ape", not being a modern great ape like humans and gorillas are, is
our ancestor. It was confusing.
Now, what is "completely absurd"? And what "leap"? Are you suggesting
that modern animal "leaps" to another modern animal? If so, you've got
evolution all wrong.
Ok. Let's hear your version beginning with the initial onset of the
universe itself.
No.
Good choice. It's impossible to explain mathematically, how at the
beginning... infinite mass occupied a finite volume.
Infinite mass?
Yes. Black holes a.k.a. "dark matter" defy Einstein and all known
physics.
Black holes don't have infinite mass.
--
DanielSan -- alt.atheism #2226
---------------------------------------------
EAC Warden - Occam Asylum
---------------------------------------------
"Some experts believe that God used something
like a nuclear bomb to destoy Sodom." --Jason
---------------------------------------------
u***@att.net
2010-09-28 20:49:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by DanielSan
Post by u***@att.net
Post by DanielSan
Post by u***@att.net
Post by u***@att.net
Post by DanielSan
Post by u***@att.net
Post by DanielSan
Post by DanielSan
Post by u***@att.net
Post by DanielSan
Post by u***@att.net
Post by DanielSan
Post by u***@att.net
Post by Bob LeChevalier
Post by u***@att.net
You meant 613 not 631. Your mistake.
Typo
Post by u***@att.net
Not only that but Jesus said there were only 2.
No, he didn't. He said that the two summed up the law, but He also
said that not one jot or tittle of the law had passed away.
lojbab
You are speaking of the jesus you think evolved from an ape... right?
Evolved from an ape? Care to define "ape"?
For clarification purposes please verify that you do not know the
meaning of "ape".
I know the meaning of ape. It seems like you don't. So, please,
provide your definition. thanks.
Be advised that this thread is for believers (see "subject").
Yet it's being posted to alt.atheism. Just a heads up.
Post by u***@att.net
Please
verify that you do not understand the difference between an "ape" and
a "human" or else define either proving your status as an unbeliever.
I am an unbeliever. But that is irrelevant to whether you know what an
"ape" is or not.
There*SNIP*
Blah, blah, blah. Do you know what an "ape" is or not?
Insistent feller ain't ye?
Ok I will explain what evolutionists lie about. They say 'common
ancestor' became both an ape and a human. By default they are saying
that a rat is the "common ancestor" of the common ancestor since the
first 'common ancestor' is assumed to be a squirrel type creature.
Now. It's all completely absurd of course seeing that you must have a
'common ancestor' in place for every billion of years where a leap
occurred. (reptile to mammal, fish to reptile, amphibian to reptile,
amoeba to amphibian, bacteria to amoeba, and last but not least how
about the billions upon billions of years it took for chemical soup to
accidentally and randomly turn into bacterial DNA)
So an "ape" is a creature that has swallowed all of the above
deceptions of evolutionists hook, line and sinker and whines day in
and day out the following..... "prove god to me".
So, "ape", not being a modern great ape like humans and gorillas are, is
our ancestor. It was confusing.
Now, what is "completely absurd"? And what "leap"? Are you suggesting
that modern animal "leaps" to another modern animal? If so, you've got
evolution all wrong.
Ok. Let's hear your version beginning with the initial onset of the
universe itself.
No.
Good choice. It's impossible to explain mathematically, how at the
beginning... infinite mass occupied a finite volume.
Infinite mass?
Yes. Black holes a.k.a. "dark matter" defy Einstein and all known
physics.
Black holes don't have infinite mass.
Prove it.

u4z
DanielSan
2010-09-28 23:33:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by u***@att.net
Post by DanielSan
Post by u***@att.net
Post by DanielSan
Post by u***@att.net
Post by u***@att.net
Post by DanielSan
Post by u***@att.net
Post by DanielSan
Post by DanielSan
Post by u***@att.net
Post by DanielSan
Post by u***@att.net
Post by DanielSan
Post by u***@att.net
Post by Bob LeChevalier
Post by u***@att.net
You meant 613 not 631. Your mistake.
Typo
Post by u***@att.net
Not only that but Jesus said there were only 2.
No, he didn't. He said that the two summed up the law, but He also
said that not one jot or tittle of the law had passed away.
lojbab
You are speaking of the jesus you think evolved from an ape... right?
Evolved from an ape? Care to define "ape"?
For clarification purposes please verify that you do not know the
meaning of "ape".
I know the meaning of ape. It seems like you don't. So, please,
provide your definition. thanks.
Be advised that this thread is for believers (see "subject").
Yet it's being posted to alt.atheism. Just a heads up.
Post by u***@att.net
Please
verify that you do not understand the difference between an "ape" and
a "human" or else define either proving your status as an unbeliever.
I am an unbeliever. But that is irrelevant to whether you know what an
"ape" is or not.
There*SNIP*
Blah, blah, blah. Do you know what an "ape" is or not?
Insistent feller ain't ye?
Ok I will explain what evolutionists lie about. They say 'common
ancestor' became both an ape and a human. By default they are saying
that a rat is the "common ancestor" of the common ancestor since the
first 'common ancestor' is assumed to be a squirrel type creature.
Now. It's all completely absurd of course seeing that you must have a
'common ancestor' in place for every billion of years where a leap
occurred. (reptile to mammal, fish to reptile, amphibian to reptile,
amoeba to amphibian, bacteria to amoeba, and last but not least how
about the billions upon billions of years it took for chemical soup to
accidentally and randomly turn into bacterial DNA)
So an "ape" is a creature that has swallowed all of the above
deceptions of evolutionists hook, line and sinker and whines day in
and day out the following..... "prove god to me".
So, "ape", not being a modern great ape like humans and gorillas are, is
our ancestor. It was confusing.
Now, what is "completely absurd"? And what "leap"? Are you suggesting
that modern animal "leaps" to another modern animal? If so, you've got
evolution all wrong.
Ok. Let's hear your version beginning with the initial onset of the
universe itself.
No.
Good choice. It's impossible to explain mathematically, how at the
beginning... infinite mass occupied a finite volume.
Infinite mass?
Yes. Black holes a.k.a. "dark matter" defy Einstein and all known
physics.
Black holes don't have infinite mass.
Prove it.
Simple. Something with infinite mass would have all the mass of the
universe and more. I have a penny on my computer table. It has mass.
Therefore, your are wrong.
--
DanielSan -- alt.atheism #2226
---------------------------------------------
EAC Warden - Occam Asylum
---------------------------------------------
"Some experts believe that God used something
like a nuclear bomb to destoy Sodom." --Jason
---------------------------------------------
u***@att.net
2010-09-29 03:34:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by DanielSan
Post by u***@att.net
Post by DanielSan
Post by u***@att.net
Post by DanielSan
Post by u***@att.net
Post by u***@att.net
Post by DanielSan
Post by u***@att.net
Post by DanielSan
Post by DanielSan
Post by u***@att.net
Post by DanielSan
Post by u***@att.net
Post by DanielSan
Post by u***@att.net
Post by Bob LeChevalier
Post by u***@att.net
You meant 613 not 631. Your mistake.
Typo
Post by u***@att.net
Not only that but Jesus said there were only 2.
No, he didn't. He said that the two summed up the law, but He also
said that not one jot or tittle of the law had passed away.
lojbab
You are speaking of the jesus you think evolved from an ape... right?
Evolved from an ape? Care to define "ape"?
For clarification purposes please verify that you do not know the
meaning of "ape".
I know the meaning of ape. It seems like you don't. So, please,
provide your definition. thanks.
Be advised that this thread is for believers (see "subject").
Yet it's being posted to alt.atheism. Just a heads up.
Post by u***@att.net
Please
verify that you do not understand the difference between an "ape" and
a "human" or else define either proving your status as an unbeliever.
I am an unbeliever. But that is irrelevant to whether you know what an
"ape" is or not.
There*SNIP*
Blah, blah, blah. Do you know what an "ape" is or not?
Insistent feller ain't ye?
Ok I will explain what evolutionists lie about. They say 'common
ancestor' became both an ape and a human. By default they are saying
that a rat is the "common ancestor" of the common ancestor since the
first 'common ancestor' is assumed to be a squirrel type creature.
Now. It's all completely absurd of course seeing that you must have a
'common ancestor' in place for every billion of years where a leap
occurred. (reptile to mammal, fish to reptile, amphibian to reptile,
amoeba to amphibian, bacteria to amoeba, and last but not least how
about the billions upon billions of years it took for chemical soup to
accidentally and randomly turn into bacterial DNA)
So an "ape" is a creature that has swallowed all of the above
deceptions of evolutionists hook, line and sinker and whines day in
and day out the following..... "prove god to me".
So, "ape", not being a modern great ape like humans and gorillas are, is
our ancestor. It was confusing.
Now, what is "completely absurd"? And what "leap"? Are you suggesting
that modern animal "leaps" to another modern animal? If so, you've got
evolution all wrong.
Ok. Let's hear your version beginning with the initial onset of the
universe itself.
No.
Good choice. It's impossible to explain mathematically, how at the
beginning... infinite mass occupied a finite volume.
Infinite mass?
Yes. Black holes a.k.a. "dark matter" defy Einstein and all known
physics.
Black holes don't have infinite mass.
Prove it.
Simple. Something with infinite mass would have all the mass of the
universe and more. I have a penny on my computer table. It has mass.
Therefore, your are wrong.
The scientific community has long since rejected Einstein's notion
that infinite mass occupied zero volume as proposed by the General
Theory of Relativity.

" The idea that the universe erupted with a Big Bang explosion has
been a big barrier in scientific attempts to understand the origin of
our expanding universe, although the Big Bang long has been considered
by physicists to be the best model. As described by Einstein's Theory
of General Relativity, the origin of the Big Bang is a mathematically
nonsensical state -- a "singularity" of zero volume that nevertheless
contained infinite density and infinitely large energy."

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/07/070702084231.htm

I have several pennies on my desk. Idjut. Einstein's theories just
don't hold up as I said...

“General relativity can be used to describe the universe back to a
point at which matter becomes so dense that its equations don’t hold
up,”

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/05/060515232747.htm

For a small monthly donation I might be inclined to inform you
concerning recent loop quantum gravity theory advances vs. string
theory.

u4z
DanielSan
2010-09-29 03:35:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by DanielSan
Post by u***@att.net
Post by DanielSan
Post by u***@att.net
Post by DanielSan
Post by u***@att.net
Post by u***@att.net
Post by DanielSan
Post by u***@att.net
Post by DanielSan
Post by DanielSan
Post by u***@att.net
Post by DanielSan
Post by u***@att.net
Post by DanielSan
Post by u***@att.net
Post by Bob LeChevalier
Post by u***@att.net
You meant 613 not 631. Your mistake.
Typo
Post by u***@att.net
Not only that but Jesus said there were only 2.
No, he didn't. He said that the two summed up the law, but He also
said that not one jot or tittle of the law had passed away.
lojbab
You are speaking of the jesus you think evolved from an ape... right?
Evolved from an ape? Care to define "ape"?
For clarification purposes please verify that you do not know the
meaning of "ape".
I know the meaning of ape. It seems like you don't. So, please,
provide your definition. thanks.
Be advised that this thread is for believers (see "subject").
Yet it's being posted to alt.atheism. Just a heads up.
Post by u***@att.net
Please
verify that you do not understand the difference between an "ape" and
a "human" or else define either proving your status as an unbeliever.
I am an unbeliever. But that is irrelevant to whether you know what an
"ape" is or not.
There*SNIP*
Blah, blah, blah. Do you know what an "ape" is or not?
Insistent feller ain't ye?
Ok I will explain what evolutionists lie about. They say 'common
ancestor' became both an ape and a human. By default they are saying
that a rat is the "common ancestor" of the common ancestor since the
first 'common ancestor' is assumed to be a squirrel type creature.
Now. It's all completely absurd of course seeing that you must have a
'common ancestor' in place for every billion of years where a leap
occurred. (reptile to mammal, fish to reptile, amphibian to reptile,
amoeba to amphibian, bacteria to amoeba, and last but not least how
about the billions upon billions of years it took for chemical soup to
accidentally and randomly turn into bacterial DNA)
So an "ape" is a creature that has swallowed all of the above
deceptions of evolutionists hook, line and sinker and whines day in
and day out the following..... "prove god to me".
So, "ape", not being a modern great ape like humans and gorillas are, is
our ancestor. It was confusing.
Now, what is "completely absurd"? And what "leap"? Are you suggesting
that modern animal "leaps" to another modern animal? If so, you've got
evolution all wrong.
Ok. Let's hear your version beginning with the initial onset of the
universe itself.
No.
Good choice. It's impossible to explain mathematically, how at the
beginning... infinite mass occupied a finite volume.
Infinite mass?
Yes. Black holes a.k.a. "dark matter" defy Einstein and all known
physics.
Black holes don't have infinite mass.
Prove it.
Simple. Something with infinite mass would have all the mass of the
universe and more. I have a penny on my computer table. It has mass.
Therefore, your are wrong.
The scientific community*SNIP*
Sorry, but you tried to move the goalposts. If there is something that
has mass and it's not part of the black hole, then black holes, by
definition, do not have infinite mass. Hell, the universe itself
doesn't have infinite mass.
--
DanielSan -- alt.atheism #2226
---------------------------------------------
EAC Warden - Occam Asylum
---------------------------------------------
"Some experts believe that God used something
like a nuclear bomb to destoy Sodom." --Jason
---------------------------------------------
Olrik
2010-09-29 03:48:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by u***@att.net
Post by DanielSan
Post by u***@att.net
Post by DanielSan
Post by u***@att.net
Post by u***@att.net
Post by DanielSan
Post by u***@att.net
Post by DanielSan
Post by u***@att.net
Post by u***@att.net
Post by u***@att.net
Post by u***@att.net
You meant 613 not 631. Your mistake.
Typo
Post by u***@att.net
Not only that but Jesus said there were only 2.
No, he didn't. He said that the two summed up the
law, but He also
said that not one jot or tittle of the law had
passed away.
lojbab
You are speaking of the jesus you think evolved from
an ape... right?
Evolved from an ape? Care to define "ape"?
For clarification purposes please verify that you do
not know the
meaning of "ape".
I know the meaning of ape. It seems like you don't. So,
please,
provide your definition. thanks.
Be advised that this thread is for believers (see "subject").
Yet it's being posted to alt.atheism. Just a heads up.
Post by u***@att.net
Please
verify that you do not understand the difference between
an "ape" and
a "human" or else define either proving your status as
an unbeliever.
I am an unbeliever. But that is irrelevant to whether you
know what an
"ape" is or not.
There*SNIP*
Blah, blah, blah. Do you know what an "ape" is or not?
Insistent feller ain't ye?
Ok I will explain what evolutionists lie about. They say 'common
ancestor' became both an ape and a human. By default they are saying
that a rat is the "common ancestor" of the common ancestor since the
first 'common ancestor' is assumed to be a squirrel type creature.
Now. It's all completely absurd of course seeing that you must have a
'common ancestor' in place for every billion of years where a leap
occurred. (reptile to mammal, fish to reptile, amphibian to reptile,
amoeba to amphibian, bacteria to amoeba, and last but not least how
about the billions upon billions of years it took for
chemical soup to
accidentally and randomly turn into bacterial DNA)
So an "ape" is a creature that has swallowed all of the above
deceptions of evolutionists hook, line and sinker and whines day in
and day out the following..... "prove god to me".
So, "ape", not being a modern great ape like humans and
gorillas are, is
our ancestor. It was confusing.
Now, what is "completely absurd"? And what "leap"? Are you
suggesting
that modern animal "leaps" to another modern animal? If so,
you've got
evolution all wrong.
Ok. Let's hear your version beginning with the initial onset of the
universe itself.
No.
Good choice. It's impossible to explain mathematically, how at the
beginning... infinite mass occupied a finite volume.
Infinite mass?
Yes. Black holes a.k.a. "dark matter" defy Einstein and all known
physics.
Black holes don't have infinite mass.
Prove it.
Simple. Something with infinite mass would have all the mass of the
universe and more. I have a penny on my computer table. It has mass.
Therefore, your are wrong.
The scientific community*SNIP*
Sorry, but you tried to move the goalposts. If there is something that
has mass and it's not part of the black hole, then black holes, by
definition, do not have infinite mass. Hell, the universe itself doesn't
have infinite mass.
Did you notice how usenet kooks are *always* after Einstein, and never
question the science of Plank (founder of quantum physics), Rutherford,
Heisenberg, Schrödinger, von Neumann, etc.

To this day, I don't know if it's because these kooks are anti-semite,
brain damaged or if they resent his "popularity".
u***@att.net
2010-09-29 05:17:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Olrik
Post by u***@att.net
Post by DanielSan
Post by u***@att.net
Post by DanielSan
Post by u***@att.net
Post by u***@att.net
Post by DanielSan
Post by u***@att.net
Post by DanielSan
Post by u***@att.net
Post by u***@att.net
Post by u***@att.net
Post by u***@att.net
You meant 613 not 631. Your mistake.
Typo
Post by u***@att.net
Not only that but Jesus said there were only 2.
No, he didn't. He said that the two summed up the
law, but He also
said that not one jot or tittle of the law had
passed away.
lojbab
You are speaking of the jesus you think evolved from
an ape... right?
Evolved from an ape? Care to define "ape"?
For clarification purposes please verify that you do
not know the
meaning of "ape".
I know the meaning of ape. It seems like you don't. So,
please,
provide your definition. thanks.
Be advised that this thread is for believers (see
"subject").
Yet it's being posted to alt.atheism. Just a heads up.
Post by u***@att.net
Please
verify that you do not understand the difference between
an "ape" and
a "human" or else define either proving your status as
an unbeliever.
I am an unbeliever. But that is irrelevant to whether you
know what an
"ape" is or not.
There*SNIP*
Blah, blah, blah. Do you know what an "ape" is or not?
Insistent feller ain't ye?
Ok I will explain what evolutionists lie about. They say 'common
ancestor' became both an ape and a human. By default they
are saying
that a rat is the "common ancestor" of the common ancestor
since the
first 'common ancestor' is assumed to be a squirrel type creature.
Now. It's all completely absurd of course seeing that you
must have a
'common ancestor' in place for every billion of years where a leap
occurred. (reptile to mammal, fish to reptile, amphibian to
reptile,
amoeba to amphibian, bacteria to amoeba, and last but not least how
about the billions upon billions of years it took for
chemical soup to
accidentally and randomly turn into bacterial DNA)
So an "ape" is a creature that has swallowed all of the above
deceptions of evolutionists hook, line and sinker and whines day in
and day out the following..... "prove god to me".
So, "ape", not being a modern great ape like humans and
gorillas are, is
our ancestor. It was confusing.
Now, what is "completely absurd"? And what "leap"? Are you
suggesting
that modern animal "leaps" to another modern animal? If so,
you've got
evolution all wrong.
Ok. Let's hear your version beginning with the initial onset of the
universe itself.
No.
Good choice. It's impossible to explain mathematically, how at the
beginning... infinite mass occupied a finite volume.
Infinite mass?
Yes. Black holes a.k.a. "dark matter" defy Einstein and all known
physics.
Black holes don't have infinite mass.
Prove it.
Simple. Something with infinite mass would have all the mass of the
universe and more. I have a penny on my computer table. It has mass.
Therefore, your are wrong.
The scientific community*SNIP*
Sorry, but you tried to move the goalposts. If there is something that
has mass and it's not part of the black hole, then black holes, by
definition, do not have infinite mass. Hell, the universe itself doesn't
have infinite mass.
Did you notice how usenet kooks are *always* after Einstein, and never
question the science of Plank (founder of quantum physics), Rutherford,
Heisenberg, Schrödinger, von Neumann, etc.
To this day, I don't know if it's because these kooks are anti-semite,
brain damaged or if they resent his "popularity".
Meanwhile the multitude of kooks against God here are perfectly ok?

go figure,

u4z
Olrik
2010-09-29 05:32:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by u***@att.net
Post by Olrik
Post by u***@att.net
Post by DanielSan
Post by u***@att.net
Post by DanielSan
Post by u***@att.net
Post by u***@att.net
Post by DanielSan
Post by u***@att.net
Post by DanielSan
Post by u***@att.net
Post by u***@att.net
Post by u***@att.net
Post by u***@att.net
You meant 613 not 631. Your mistake.
Typo
Post by u***@att.net
Not only that but Jesus said there were only 2.
No, he didn't. He said that the two summed up the
law, but He also
said that not one jot or tittle of the law had
passed away.
lojbab
You are speaking of the jesus you think evolved from
an ape... right?
Evolved from an ape? Care to define "ape"?
For clarification purposes please verify that you do
not know the
meaning of "ape".
I know the meaning of ape. It seems like you don't. So,
please,
provide your definition. thanks.
Be advised that this thread is for believers (see
"subject").
Yet it's being posted to alt.atheism. Just a heads up.
Post by u***@att.net
Please
verify that you do not understand the difference between
an "ape" and
a "human" or else define either proving your status as
an unbeliever.
I am an unbeliever. But that is irrelevant to whether you
know what an
"ape" is or not.
There*SNIP*
Blah, blah, blah. Do you know what an "ape" is or not?
Insistent feller ain't ye?
Ok I will explain what evolutionists lie about. They say 'common
ancestor' became both an ape and a human. By default they
are saying
that a rat is the "common ancestor" of the common ancestor
since the
first 'common ancestor' is assumed to be a squirrel type
creature.
Now. It's all completely absurd of course seeing that you
must have a
'common ancestor' in place for every billion of years where
a leap
occurred. (reptile to mammal, fish to reptile, amphibian to
reptile,
amoeba to amphibian, bacteria to amoeba, and last but not
least how
about the billions upon billions of years it took for
chemical soup to
accidentally and randomly turn into bacterial DNA)
So an "ape" is a creature that has swallowed all of the above
deceptions of evolutionists hook, line and sinker and whines
day in
and day out the following..... "prove god to me".
So, "ape", not being a modern great ape like humans and
gorillas are, is
our ancestor. It was confusing.
Now, what is "completely absurd"? And what "leap"? Are you
suggesting
that modern animal "leaps" to another modern animal? If so,
you've got
evolution all wrong.
Ok. Let's hear your version beginning with the initial onset of the
universe itself.
No.
Good choice. It's impossible to explain mathematically, how at the
beginning... infinite mass occupied a finite volume.
Infinite mass?
Yes. Black holes a.k.a. "dark matter" defy Einstein and all known
physics.
Black holes don't have infinite mass.
Prove it.
Simple. Something with infinite mass would have all the mass of the
universe and more. I have a penny on my computer table. It has mass.
Therefore, your are wrong.
The scientific community*SNIP*
Sorry, but you tried to move the goalposts. If there is something that
has mass and it's not part of the black hole, then black holes, by
definition, do not have infinite mass. Hell, the universe itself doesn't
have infinite mass.
Did you notice how usenet kooks are *always* after Einstein, and never
question the science of Plank (founder of quantum physics), Rutherford,
Heisenberg, Schrödinger, von Neumann, etc.
To this day, I don't know if it's because these kooks are anti-semite,
brain damaged or if they resent his "popularity".
Meanwhile the multitude of kooks against God here are perfectly ok?
There is no evidence for any sort of "god", kook.
Post by u***@att.net
go figure,
u4z
Ralph
2010-09-29 20:29:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by u***@att.net
Post by Olrik
Post by u***@att.net
Post by DanielSan
Post by u***@att.net
Post by DanielSan
Post by u***@att.net
Post by u***@att.net
Post by DanielSan
Post by u***@att.net
Post by DanielSan
Post by u***@att.net
Post by u***@att.net
Post by u***@att.net
Post by u***@att.net
You meant 613 not 631. Your mistake.
Typo
Post by u***@att.net
Not only that but Jesus said there were only 2.
No, he didn't. He said that the two summed up the
law, but He also
said that not one jot or tittle of the law had
passed away.
lojbab
You are speaking of the jesus you think evolved from
an ape... right?
Evolved from an ape? Care to define "ape"?
For clarification purposes please verify that you do
not know the
meaning of "ape".
I know the meaning of ape. It seems like you don't. So,
please,
provide your definition. thanks.
Be advised that this thread is for believers (see
"subject").
Yet it's being posted to alt.atheism. Just a heads up.
Post by u***@att.net
Please
verify that you do not understand the difference between
an "ape" and
a "human" or else define either proving your status as
an unbeliever.
I am an unbeliever. But that is irrelevant to whether you
know what an
"ape" is or not.
There*SNIP*
Blah, blah, blah. Do you know what an "ape" is or not?
Insistent feller ain't ye?
Ok I will explain what evolutionists lie about. They say 'common
ancestor' became both an ape and a human. By default they
are saying
that a rat is the "common ancestor" of the common ancestor
since the
first 'common ancestor' is assumed to be a squirrel type
creature.
Now. It's all completely absurd of course seeing that you
must have a
'common ancestor' in place for every billion of years where
a leap
occurred. (reptile to mammal, fish to reptile, amphibian to
reptile,
amoeba to amphibian, bacteria to amoeba, and last but not
least how
about the billions upon billions of years it took for
chemical soup to
accidentally and randomly turn into bacterial DNA)
So an "ape" is a creature that has swallowed all of the above
deceptions of evolutionists hook, line and sinker and whines
day in
and day out the following..... "prove god to me".
So, "ape", not being a modern great ape like humans and
gorillas are, is
our ancestor. It was confusing.
Now, what is "completely absurd"? And what "leap"? Are you
suggesting
that modern animal "leaps" to another modern animal? If so,
you've got
evolution all wrong.
Ok. Let's hear your version beginning with the initial onset of the
universe itself.
No.
Good choice. It's impossible to explain mathematically, how at the
beginning... infinite mass occupied a finite volume.
Infinite mass?
Yes. Black holes a.k.a. "dark matter" defy Einstein and all known
physics.
Black holes don't have infinite mass.
Prove it.
Simple. Something with infinite mass would have all the mass of the
universe and more. I have a penny on my computer table. It has mass.
Therefore, your are wrong.
The scientific community*SNIP*
Sorry, but you tried to move the goalposts. If there is something that
has mass and it's not part of the black hole, then black holes, by
definition, do not have infinite mass. Hell, the universe itself doesn't
have infinite mass.
Did you notice how usenet kooks are *always* after Einstein, and never
question the science of Plank (founder of quantum physics), Rutherford,
Heisenberg, Schrödinger, von Neumann, etc.
To this day, I don't know if it's because these kooks are anti-semite,
brain damaged or if they resent his "popularity".
Meanwhile the multitude of kooks against God here are perfectly ok?
go figure,
u4z
Can't be against what doesn't exist.
u***@att.net
2010-09-29 04:48:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by DanielSan
Sorry, but you tried to move the goalposts. If there is something that
has mass and it's not part of the black hole, then black holes, by
definition, do not have infinite mass. Hell, the universe itself
doesn't have infinite mass.
Nope. Not me. Einstein said only infinite mass could stop light.

u4z
DanielSan
2010-09-29 04:59:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by u***@att.net
Post by DanielSan
Sorry, but you tried to move the goalposts. If there is something that
has mass and it's not part of the black hole, then black holes, by
definition, do not have infinite mass. Hell, the universe itself
doesn't have infinite mass.
Nope. Not me. Einstein said only infinite mass could stop light.
[citation needed]

Also, I don't think that light stops in a black hole.
--
DanielSan -- alt.atheism #2226
---------------------------------------------
EAC Warden - Occam Asylum
---------------------------------------------
"Some experts believe that God used something
like a nuclear bomb to destoy Sodom." --Jason
---------------------------------------------
nature bats_last
2010-09-29 17:43:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by DanielSan
Post by u***@att.net
Sorry, but you tried to move the goalposts.  If there is something that
has mass and it's not part of the black hole, then black holes, by
definition, do not have infinite mass.  Hell, the universe itself
doesn't have infinite mass.
Nope. Not me. Einstein said only infinite mass could stop light.
[citation needed]
Also, I don't think that light stops in a black hole.
It doesn't. And of course Enstein said nothing
at all about infinite masses.

LB's S
Post by DanielSan
--
        DanielSan -- alt.atheism #2226
---------------------------------------------
          EAC Warden - Occam Asylum
---------------------------------------------
"Some experts believe that God used something
like a nuclear bomb to destoy Sodom." --Jason
---------------------------------------------
Olrik
2010-09-29 05:05:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by u***@att.net
Post by DanielSan
Sorry, but you tried to move the goalposts. If there is something that
has mass and it's not part of the black hole, then black holes, by
definition, do not have infinite mass. Hell, the universe itself
doesn't have infinite mass.
Nope. Not me. Einstein said only infinite mass could stop light.
Anything can "stop" or deflect light.
Post by u***@att.net
u4z
Ralph
2010-10-01 23:07:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by u***@att.net
Post by DanielSan
Sorry, but you tried to move the goalposts. If there is something that
has mass and it's not part of the black hole, then black holes, by
definition, do not have infinite mass. Hell, the universe itself
doesn't have infinite mass.
Nope. Not me. Einstein said only infinite mass could stop light.
u4z
Really, I remember that light has been stopped in the lab many times.
Perhaps Einstein should have listened to you.
u***@att.net
2010-10-02 00:01:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ralph
Post by u***@att.net
Post by DanielSan
Sorry, but you tried to move the goalposts. If there is something that
has mass and it's not part of the black hole, then black holes, by
definition, do not have infinite mass. Hell, the universe itself
doesn't have infinite mass.
Nope. Not me. Einstein said only infinite mass could stop light.
u4z
Really, I remember that light has been stopped in the lab many times.
Perhaps Einstein should have listened to you.
Perhaps you should contact him and inform him. Truthfully however, I
don't know if his soul is in hell or in heaven. Do you?

u4z
Ralph
2010-10-02 00:04:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by u***@att.net
Post by Ralph
Post by u***@att.net
Post by DanielSan
Sorry, but you tried to move the goalposts. If there is something that
has mass and it's not part of the black hole, then black holes, by
definition, do not have infinite mass. Hell, the universe itself
doesn't have infinite mass.
Nope. Not me. Einstein said only infinite mass could stop light.
u4z
Really, I remember that light has been stopped in the lab many times.
Perhaps Einstein should have listened to you.
Perhaps you should contact him and inform him. Truthfully however, I
don't know if his soul is in hell or in heaven. Do you?
u4z
Hey Uz, you're the one who made the claim about stopping light, you
contact him. I'll be waiting for notice from you that you succeed. See,
that is another problem with heaven or hell, no one has ever escaped.
That is why it is much easier to say that when you're dead, you're dead!
u***@att.net
2010-10-02 00:20:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ralph
Post by u***@att.net
Post by Ralph
Post by u***@att.net
Post by DanielSan
Sorry, but you tried to move the goalposts. If there is something that
has mass and it's not part of the black hole, then black holes, by
definition, do not have infinite mass. Hell, the universe itself
doesn't have infinite mass.
Nope. Not me. Einstein said only infinite mass could stop light.
u4z
Really, I remember that light has been stopped in the lab many times.
Perhaps Einstein should have listened to you.
Perhaps you should contact him and inform him. Truthfully however, I
don't know if his soul is in hell or in heaven. Do you?
u4z
Hey Uz, you're the one who made the claim about stopping light, you
contact him. I'll be waiting for notice from you that you succeed. See,
that is another problem with heaven or hell, no one has ever escaped.
That is why it is much easier to say that when you're dead, you're dead!
Jesus proved that the laws of physics were not really "laws" when he
walked on water, turned water into wine, rose from the dead etc.

Your beliefs are regressive, not progressive. You are enslaved by
limits of the regressive slave masters.

Your only hope is to repent directly to God Himself and become free
from your regressive human slave masters.

u4z
Ralph
2010-10-02 00:43:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by u***@att.net
Post by Ralph
Post by u***@att.net
Post by Ralph
Post by u***@att.net
Post by DanielSan
Sorry, but you tried to move the goalposts. If there is something that
has mass and it's not part of the black hole, then black holes, by
definition, do not have infinite mass. Hell, the universe itself
doesn't have infinite mass.
Nope. Not me. Einstein said only infinite mass could stop light.
u4z
Really, I remember that light has been stopped in the lab many times.
Perhaps Einstein should have listened to you.
Perhaps you should contact him and inform him. Truthfully however, I
don't know if his soul is in hell or in heaven. Do you?
u4z
Hey Uz, you're the one who made the claim about stopping light, you
contact him. I'll be waiting for notice from you that you succeed. See,
that is another problem with heaven or hell, no one has ever escaped.
That is why it is much easier to say that when you're dead, you're dead!
Jesus proved that the laws of physics were not really "laws" when he
walked on water, turned water into wine, rose from the dead etc.
Your beliefs are regressive, not progressive. You are enslaved by
limits of the regressive slave masters.
Your only hope is to repent directly to God Himself and become free
from your regressive human slave masters.
u4z
You're crazier than I originally thought. If Jesus had actually 'walked'
on water he would have gotten wet!
DanielSan
2010-10-02 04:40:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ralph
Post by u***@att.net
Sorry, but you tried to move the goalposts. If there is something that
has mass and it's not part of the black hole, then black holes, by
definition, do not have infinite mass. Hell, the universe itself
doesn't have infinite mass.
Nope. Not me. Einstein said only infinite mass could stop light.
u4z
Really, I remember that light has been stopped in the lab many times.
Perhaps Einstein should have listened to you.
Light is frequently stopped by my body. Like, every day. In fact, if
you look at the ground below me, you'll see a me-shaped hole in the light.

Now, what's that called.....?
--
DanielSan -- alt.atheism #2226
---------------------------------------------
EAC Warden - Occam Asylum
---------------------------------------------
"Some experts believe that God used something
like a nuclear bomb to destoy Sodom." --Jason
---------------------------------------------
Ralph
2010-10-02 13:43:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ralph
Post by u***@att.net
Sorry, but you tried to move the goalposts. If there is something that
has mass and it's not part of the black hole, then black holes, by
definition, do not have infinite mass. Hell, the universe itself
doesn't have infinite mass.
Nope. Not me. Einstein said only infinite mass could stop light.
u4z
Really, I remember that light has been stopped in the lab many times.
Perhaps Einstein should have listened to you.
Light is frequently stopped by my body. Like, every day. In fact, if you
look at the ground below me, you'll see a me-shaped hole in the light.
Now, what's that called.....?
A miracle????????????????

Erwin Moller
2010-09-28 06:11:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by u***@att.net
Post by DanielSan
Post by u***@att.net
Post by u***@att.net
Post by DanielSan
Post by u***@att.net
Post by DanielSan
Post by DanielSan
Post by u***@att.net
Post by DanielSan
Post by u***@att.net
Post by DanielSan
Post by u***@att.net
Post by Bob LeChevalier
Post by u***@att.net
You meant 613 not 631. Your mistake.
Typo
Post by u***@att.net
Not only that but Jesus said there were only 2.
No, he didn't. He said that the two summed up the law, but He also
said that not one jot or tittle of the law had passed away.
lojbab
You are speaking of the jesus you think evolved from an ape... right?
Evolved from an ape? Care to define "ape"?
For clarification purposes please verify that you do not know the
meaning of "ape".
I know the meaning of ape. It seems like you don't. So, please,
provide your definition. thanks.
Be advised that this thread is for believers (see "subject").
Yet it's being posted to alt.atheism. Just a heads up.
Post by u***@att.net
Please
verify that you do not understand the difference between an "ape" and
a "human" or else define either proving your status as an unbeliever.
I am an unbeliever. But that is irrelevant to whether you know what an
"ape" is or not.
There*SNIP*
Blah, blah, blah. Do you know what an "ape" is or not?
Insistent feller ain't ye?
Ok I will explain what evolutionists lie about. They say 'common
ancestor' became both an ape and a human. By default they are saying
that a rat is the "common ancestor" of the common ancestor since the
first 'common ancestor' is assumed to be a squirrel type creature.
Now. It's all completely absurd of course seeing that you must have a
'common ancestor' in place for every billion of years where a leap
occurred. (reptile to mammal, fish to reptile, amphibian to reptile,
amoeba to amphibian, bacteria to amoeba, and last but not least how
about the billions upon billions of years it took for chemical soup to
accidentally and randomly turn into bacterial DNA)
So an "ape" is a creature that has swallowed all of the above
deceptions of evolutionists hook, line and sinker and whines day in
and day out the following..... "prove god to me".
So, "ape", not being a modern great ape like humans and gorillas are, is
our ancestor. It was confusing.
Now, what is "completely absurd"? And what "leap"? Are you suggesting
that modern animal "leaps" to another modern animal? If so, you've got
evolution all wrong.
Ok. Let's hear your version beginning with the initial onset of the
universe itself.
No.
Good choice. It's impossible to explain mathematically, how at the
beginning... infinite mass occupied a finite volume.
Infinite mass?
Yes. Black holes a.k.a. "dark matter" defy Einstein and all known
physics.
u4z
One big problem with creationists is that they don't know, nor care,
what they are talking about.

First the ape blunder.
Now the infinite mass blunder.
(And a bunch in between I won't bring up)

Why don't you people catch up a little first on modern science, than
come back and start lecturing those who caught up already?

It will give a little more credibility to your ideas if you don't
blunder so much...

Just a friendly advice.

Regards,
Erwin Moller
--
"There are two ways of constructing a software design: One way is to
make it so simple that there are obviously no deficiencies, and the
other way is to make it so complicated that there are no obvious
deficiencies. The first method is far more difficult."
-- C.A.R. Hoare
u***@att.net
2010-09-28 20:55:58 UTC
Permalink
Erwin Moller
Post by Erwin Moller
Post by u***@att.net
Post by DanielSan
Post by u***@att.net
Post by u***@att.net
Post by DanielSan
Post by u***@att.net
Post by DanielSan
Post by DanielSan
Post by u***@att.net
Post by DanielSan
Post by u***@att.net
Post by DanielSan
Post by u***@att.net
Post by Bob LeChevalier
Post by u***@att.net
You meant 613 not 631. Your mistake.
Typo
Post by u***@att.net
Not only that but Jesus said there were only 2.
No, he didn't. He said that the two summed up the law, but He also
said that not one jot or tittle of the law had passed away.
lojbab
You are speaking of the jesus you think evolved from an ape... right?
Evolved from an ape? Care to define "ape"?
For clarification purposes please verify that you do not know the
meaning of "ape".
I know the meaning of ape. It seems like you don't. So, please,
provide your definition. thanks.
Be advised that this thread is for believers (see "subject").
Yet it's being posted to alt.atheism. Just a heads up.
Post by u***@att.net
Please
verify that you do not understand the difference between an "ape" and
a "human" or else define either proving your status as an unbeliever.
I am an unbeliever. But that is irrelevant to whether you know what an
"ape" is or not.
There*SNIP*
Blah, blah, blah. Do you know what an "ape" is or not?
Insistent feller ain't ye?
Ok I will explain what evolutionists lie about. They say 'common
ancestor' became both an ape and a human. By default they are saying
that a rat is the "common ancestor" of the common ancestor since the
first 'common ancestor' is assumed to be a squirrel type creature.
Now. It's all completely absurd of course seeing that you must have a
'common ancestor' in place for every billion of years where a leap
occurred. (reptile to mammal, fish to reptile, amphibian to reptile,
amoeba to amphibian, bacteria to amoeba, and last but not least how
about the billions upon billions of years it took for chemical soup to
accidentally and randomly turn into bacterial DNA)
So an "ape" is a creature that has swallowed all of the above
deceptions of evolutionists hook, line and sinker and whines day in
and day out the following..... "prove god to me".
So, "ape", not being a modern great ape like humans and gorillas are, is
our ancestor. It was confusing.
Now, what is "completely absurd"? And what "leap"? Are you suggesting
that modern animal "leaps" to another modern animal? If so, you've got
evolution all wrong.
Ok. Let's hear your version beginning with the initial onset of the
universe itself.
No.
Good choice. It's impossible to explain mathematically, how at the
beginning... infinite mass occupied a finite volume.
Infinite mass?
Yes. Black holes a.k.a. "dark matter" defy Einstein and all known
physics.
u4z
One big problem with creationists is that they don't know, nor care,
what they are talking about.
First the ape blunder.
Now the infinite mass blunder.
(And a bunch in between I won't bring up)
Why don't you people catch up a little first on modern science, than
come back and start lecturing those who caught up already?
It will give a little more credibility to your ideas if you don't
blunder so much...
Just a friendly advice.
Regards,
Erwin Moller
Fact is is that Einstein mathematics wrt mass and energy have found to
be flawed.

As an unbeliever the burden of an explanation rests upon your
shoulders. I must add that implying that men came from apes adds
nothing to your credibility as far as true science is concerned.

Hence the need for the deceptive, superstitious, non-scientific
methods you use which proves beyond doubt that you indeed belong to
nothing more than just another pagan religious cult.

u4z
Olrik
2010-09-28 21:10:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Erwin Moller
Erwin Moller
Post by Erwin Moller
Post by u***@att.net
Post by DanielSan
Post by u***@att.net
Post by u***@att.net
Post by DanielSan
Post by u***@att.net
Post by DanielSan
Post by DanielSan
Post by u***@att.net
Post by DanielSan
Post by u***@att.net
Post by DanielSan
Post by u***@att.net
Post by Bob LeChevalier
Post by u***@att.net
You meant 613 not 631. Your mistake.
Typo
Post by u***@att.net
Not only that but Jesus said there were only 2.
No, he didn't. He said that the two summed up the law, but He also
said that not one jot or tittle of the law had passed away.
lojbab
You are speaking of the jesus you think evolved from an ape... right?
Evolved from an ape? Care to define "ape"?
For clarification purposes please verify that you do not know the
meaning of "ape".
I know the meaning of ape. It seems like you don't. So, please,
provide your definition. thanks.
Be advised that this thread is for believers (see "subject").
Yet it's being posted to alt.atheism. Just a heads up.
Post by u***@att.net
Please
verify that you do not understand the difference between an "ape" and
a "human" or else define either proving your status as an unbeliever.
I am an unbeliever. But that is irrelevant to whether you know what an
"ape" is or not.
There*SNIP*
Blah, blah, blah. Do you know what an "ape" is or not?
Insistent feller ain't ye?
Ok I will explain what evolutionists lie about. They say 'common
ancestor' became both an ape and a human. By default they are saying
that a rat is the "common ancestor" of the common ancestor since the
first 'common ancestor' is assumed to be a squirrel type creature.
Now. It's all completely absurd of course seeing that you must have a
'common ancestor' in place for every billion of years where a leap
occurred. (reptile to mammal, fish to reptile, amphibian to reptile,
amoeba to amphibian, bacteria to amoeba, and last but not least how
about the billions upon billions of years it took for chemical soup to
accidentally and randomly turn into bacterial DNA)
So an "ape" is a creature that has swallowed all of the above
deceptions of evolutionists hook, line and sinker and whines day in
and day out the following..... "prove god to me".
So, "ape", not being a modern great ape like humans and gorillas are, is
our ancestor. It was confusing.
Now, what is "completely absurd"? And what "leap"? Are you suggesting
that modern animal "leaps" to another modern animal? If so, you've got
evolution all wrong.
Ok. Let's hear your version beginning with the initial onset of the
universe itself.
No.
Good choice. It's impossible to explain mathematically, how at the
beginning... infinite mass occupied a finite volume.
Infinite mass?
Yes. Black holes a.k.a. "dark matter" defy Einstein and all known
physics.
u4z
One big problem with creationists is that they don't know, nor care,
what they are talking about.
First the ape blunder.
Now the infinite mass blunder.
(And a bunch in between I won't bring up)
Why don't you people catch up a little first on modern science, than
come back and start lecturing those who caught up already?
It will give a little more credibility to your ideas if you don't
blunder so much...
Just a friendly advice.
Regards,
Erwin Moller
Fact is is that Einstein mathematics wrt mass and energy have found to
be flawed.
By whom?
Post by Erwin Moller
As an unbeliever the burden of an explanation rests upon your
shoulders. I must add that implying that men came from apes
We do indeed share the same ancestors.
Post by Erwin Moller
adds nothing to your credibility as far as true science
There is *no* "true" science. There's science.
Post by Erwin Moller
is concerned.
Hence the need for the deceptive, superstitious, non-scientific
methods you use which proves beyond doubt that you indeed belong to
nothing more than just another pagan religious cult.
u4z
archie dux
2010-09-28 21:24:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Erwin Moller
Erwin Moller
Post by Erwin Moller
Post by u***@att.net
Post by DanielSan
Post by u***@att.net
Post by u***@att.net
Post by DanielSan
Post by u***@att.net
Post by DanielSan
Post by u***@att.net
Post by u***@att.net
Post by u***@att.net
Post by u***@att.net
You meant 613 not 631. Your mistake.
Typo
Post by u***@att.net
Not only that but Jesus said there were only 2.
No, he didn't.  He said that the two summed up the law, but He also
said that not one jot or tittle of the law had passed away.
lojbab
You are speaking of the jesus you think evolved from an ape... right?
Evolved from an ape?  Care to define "ape"?
For clarification purposes please verify that you do not know the
meaning of "ape".
I know the meaning of ape.  It seems like you don't.  So, please,
provide your definition.  thanks.
Be advised that this thread is for believers (see "subject").
Yet it's being posted to alt.atheism. Just a heads up.
Post by u***@att.net
Please
verify that you do not understand the difference between an "ape" and
a "human" or else define either proving your status as an unbeliever.
I am an unbeliever.  But that is irrelevant to whether you know what an
"ape" is or not.
There*SNIP*
Blah, blah, blah.  Do you know what an "ape" is or not?
Insistent feller ain't ye?
Ok I will explain what evolutionists lie about. They say 'common
ancestor' became both an ape and a human. By default they are saying
that a rat is the "common ancestor" of the common ancestor since the
first 'common ancestor' is assumed to be a squirrel type creature.
Now. It's all completely absurd of course seeing that you must have a
'common ancestor' in place for every billion of years where a leap
occurred. (reptile to mammal, fish to reptile, amphibian to reptile,
amoeba to amphibian, bacteria to amoeba, and last but not least how
about the billions upon billions of years it took for chemical soup to
accidentally and randomly turn into bacterial DNA)
So an "ape" is a creature that has swallowed all of the above
deceptions of evolutionists hook, line and sinker and whines day in
and day out the following..... "prove god to me".
So, "ape", not being a modern great ape like humans and gorillas are, is
our ancestor.  It was confusing.
Now, what is "completely absurd"?  And what "leap"?  Are you suggesting
that modern animal "leaps" to another modern animal?  If so, you've got
evolution all wrong.
Ok. Let's hear your version beginning with the initial onset of the
universe itself.
No.
Good choice. It's impossible to explain mathematically, how at the
beginning... infinite mass occupied a finite volume.
Infinite mass?
Yes. Black holes a.k.a. "dark matter" defy Einstein and all known
physics.
u4z
One big problem with creationists is that they don't know, nor care,
what they are talking about.
First the ape blunder.
Now the infinite mass blunder.
(And a bunch in between I won't bring up)
Why don't you people catch up a little first on modern science, than
come back and start lecturing those who caught up already?
It will give a little more credibility to your ideas if you don't
blunder so much...
Just a friendly advice.
Regards,
Erwin Moller
Fact is is that Einstein mathematics wrt mass and energy have found to
be flawed.
Interesting. I do a rather large amount of reading
in this area, and I have no idea what you're talking
about.

Enlighten me:


archie
Post by Erwin Moller
As an unbeliever the burden of an explanation rests upon your
shoulders. I must add that implying that men came from apes adds
nothing to your credibility as far as true science is concerned.
Hence the need for the deceptive, superstitious, non-scientific
methods you use which proves beyond doubt that you indeed belong to
nothing more than just another pagan religious cult.
u4z
u***@att.net
2010-09-28 21:52:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by archie dux
Post by Erwin Moller
Erwin Moller
Post by Erwin Moller
Post by u***@att.net
Post by DanielSan
Post by u***@att.net
Post by u***@att.net
Post by DanielSan
Post by u***@att.net
Post by DanielSan
Post by u***@att.net
Post by u***@att.net
Post by u***@att.net
Post by u***@att.net
You meant 613 not 631. Your mistake.
Typo
Post by u***@att.net
Not only that but Jesus said there were only 2.
No, he didn't.  He said that the two summed up the law, but He also
said that not one jot or tittle of the law had passed away.
lojbab
You are speaking of the jesus you think evolved from an ape... right?
Evolved from an ape?  Care to define "ape"?
For clarification purposes please verify that you do not know the
meaning of "ape".
I know the meaning of ape.  It seems like you don't.  So, please,
provide your definition.  thanks.
Be advised that this thread is for believers (see "subject").
Yet it's being posted to alt.atheism. Just a heads up.
Post by u***@att.net
Please
verify that you do not understand the difference between an "ape" and
a "human" or else define either proving your status as an unbeliever.
I am an unbeliever.  But that is irrelevant to whether you know what an
"ape" is or not.
There*SNIP*
Blah, blah, blah.  Do you know what an "ape" is or not?
Insistent feller ain't ye?
Ok I will explain what evolutionists lie about. They say 'common
ancestor' became both an ape and a human. By default they are saying
that a rat is the "common ancestor" of the common ancestor since the
first 'common ancestor' is assumed to be a squirrel type creature.
Now. It's all completely absurd of course seeing that you must have a
'common ancestor' in place for every billion of years where a leap
occurred. (reptile to mammal, fish to reptile, amphibian to reptile,
amoeba to amphibian, bacteria to amoeba, and last but not least how
about the billions upon billions of years it took for chemical soup to
accidentally and randomly turn into bacterial DNA)
So an "ape" is a creature that has swallowed all of the above
deceptions of evolutionists hook, line and sinker and whines day in
and day out the following..... "prove god to me".
So, "ape", not being a modern great ape like humans and gorillas are, is
our ancestor.  It was confusing.
Now, what is "completely absurd"?  And what "leap"?  Are you suggesting
that modern animal "leaps" to another modern animal?  If so, you've got
evolution all wrong.
Ok. Let's hear your version beginning with the initial onset of the
universe itself.
No.
Good choice. It's impossible to explain mathematically, how at the
beginning... infinite mass occupied a finite volume.
Infinite mass?
Yes. Black holes a.k.a. "dark matter" defy Einstein and all known
physics.
u4z
One big problem with creationists is that they don't know, nor care,
what they are talking about.
First the ape blunder.
Now the infinite mass blunder.
(And a bunch in between I won't bring up)
Why don't you people catch up a little first on modern science, than
come back and start lecturing those who caught up already?
It will give a little more credibility to your ideas if you don't
blunder so much...
Just a friendly advice.
Regards,
Erwin Moller
Fact is is that Einstein mathematics wrt mass and energy have found to
be flawed.
Interesting. I do a rather large amount of reading
in this area, and I have no idea what you're talking
about.
archie
No thanks. Enlighten yourself.

u4z
archie dux
2010-09-28 21:59:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by u***@att.net
Post by Erwin Moller
Erwin Moller
Post by Erwin Moller
Post by u***@att.net
Post by DanielSan
Post by u***@att.net
Post by u***@att.net
Post by DanielSan
Post by u***@att.net
Post by DanielSan
Post by u***@att.net
Post by u***@att.net
Post by u***@att.net
Post by u***@att.net
You meant 613 not 631. Your mistake.
Typo
Post by u***@att.net
Not only that but Jesus said there were only 2.
No, he didn't.  He said that the two summed up the law, but He also
said that not one jot or tittle of the law had passed away.
lojbab
You are speaking of the jesus you think evolved from an ape... right?
Evolved from an ape?  Care to define "ape"?
For clarification purposes please verify that you do not know the
meaning of "ape".
I know the meaning of ape.  It seems like you don't.  So, please,
provide your definition.  thanks.
Be advised that this thread is for believers (see "subject").
Yet it's being posted to alt.atheism. Just a heads up.
Post by u***@att.net
Please
verify that you do not understand the difference between an "ape" and
a "human" or else define either proving your status as an unbeliever.
I am an unbeliever.  But that is irrelevant to whether you know what an
"ape" is or not.
There*SNIP*
Blah, blah, blah.  Do you know what an "ape" is or not?
Insistent feller ain't ye?
Ok I will explain what evolutionists lie about. They say 'common
ancestor' became both an ape and a human. By default they are saying
that a rat is the "common ancestor" of the common ancestor since the
first 'common ancestor' is assumed to be a squirrel type creature.
Now. It's all completely absurd of course seeing that you must have a
'common ancestor' in place for every billion of years where a leap
occurred. (reptile to mammal, fish to reptile, amphibian to reptile,
amoeba to amphibian, bacteria to amoeba, and last but not least how
about the billions upon billions of years it took for chemical soup to
accidentally and randomly turn into bacterial DNA)
So an "ape" is a creature that has swallowed all of the above
deceptions of evolutionists hook, line and sinker and whines day in
and day out the following..... "prove god to me".
So, "ape", not being a modern great ape like humans and gorillas are, is
our ancestor.  It was confusing.
Now, what is "completely absurd"?  And what "leap"?  Are you suggesting
that modern animal "leaps" to another modern animal?  If so, you've got
evolution all wrong.
Ok. Let's hear your version beginning with the initial onset of the
universe itself.
No.
Good choice. It's impossible to explain mathematically, how at the
beginning... infinite mass occupied a finite volume.
Infinite mass?
Yes. Black holes a.k.a. "dark matter" defy Einstein and all known
physics.
u4z
One big problem with creationists is that they don't know, nor care,
what they are talking about.
First the ape blunder.
Now the infinite mass blunder.
(And a bunch in between I won't bring up)
Why don't you people catch up a little first on modern science, than
come back and start lecturing those who caught up already?
It will give a little more credibility to your ideas if you don't
blunder so much...
Just a friendly advice.
Regards,
Erwin Moller
Fact is is that Einstein mathematics wrt mass and energy have found to
be flawed.
Interesting.  I do a rather large amount of reading
in this area, and I have no idea what you're talking
about.
archie
No thanks. Enlighten yourself.
Your surly admission of utter defeat
is graciously accepted.

archie
Post by u***@att.net
u4z
Erwin Moller
2010-09-29 10:23:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Erwin Moller
Erwin Moller
<snip>
Post by Erwin Moller
Post by Erwin Moller
Post by u***@att.net
Post by DanielSan
Infinite mass?
Yes. Black holes a.k.a. "dark matter" defy Einstein and all known
physics.
u4z
One big problem with creationists is that they don't know, nor care,
what they are talking about.
First the ape blunder.
Now the infinite mass blunder.
(And a bunch in between I won't bring up)
Why don't you people catch up a little first on modern science, than
come back and start lecturing those who caught up already?
It will give a little more credibility to your ideas if you don't
blunder so much...
Just a friendly advice.
Regards,
Erwin Moller
Hello again u4z,
Post by Erwin Moller
Fact is is that Einstein mathematics wrt mass and energy have found to
be flawed.
What does 'wrt' mean? (I am not a native English speaker, in case you
haven't noticed.)

Apart from that: What is flawed in which Einstein equation?

(Maybe you are right, I just don't have a clue what you are talking about.)
Post by Erwin Moller
As an unbeliever the burden of an explanation rests upon your
shoulders.
Assuming you mean that I must explain where the universe came from
(because I am an unbeliever), then you are clearly WRONG.

You are making a classic mistake, maybe on purpose.

The mere fact that *I* don't know something doesn't make *you* right.

That is actually very easy to see in the following example:
Joe says all cheese from Greece is yellow.
U4z says all cheese from Greece is green.

Now you ask me what color cheese from Greece is.
I answer: I don't know.
Then you claim you are right and all cheese from Greece is green.
(But Joe could make the same logic mistake you just made and thus claim
cheese from Greece is yellow.)

Do you understand what I mean?
Post by Erwin Moller
I must add that implying that men came from apes adds
nothing to your credibility as far as true science is concerned.
My credibility?
What has my credibility to do with biology?
Do you think I am stating personal opinions here?
Post by Erwin Moller
Hence the need for the deceptive, superstitious, non-scientific
methods you use which proves beyond doubt that you indeed belong to
nothing more than just another pagan religious cult.
You must be a troll.
If not: then you are too good to be true. ;-)

Enjoy the trolling!

Regards,
Erwin Moller
Post by Erwin Moller
u4z
--
"There are two ways of constructing a software design: One way is to
make it so simple that there are obviously no deficiencies, and the
other way is to make it so complicated that there are no obvious
deficiencies. The first method is far more difficult."
-- C.A.R. Hoare
DanielSan
2010-09-29 10:46:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Erwin Moller
Post by u***@att.net
Fact is is that Einstein mathematics wrt mass and energy have found to
be flawed.
What does 'wrt' mean? (I am not a native English speaker, in case you
haven't noticed.)
"wrt" is an abbreviation for "With regards to".

Other than that, carry on. :)
--
DanielSan -- alt.atheism #2226
---------------------------------------------
EAC Warden - Occam Asylum
---------------------------------------------
"Some experts believe that God used something
like a nuclear bomb to destoy Sodom." --Jason
---------------------------------------------
u***@att.net
2010-09-29 21:15:32 UTC
Permalink
Erwin Moller
Post by Erwin Moller
Post by Erwin Moller
Erwin Moller
<snip>
Post by Erwin Moller
Post by Erwin Moller
Post by u***@att.net
Post by DanielSan
Infinite mass?
Yes. Black holes a.k.a. "dark matter" defy Einstein and all known
physics.
u4z
One big problem with creationists is that they don't know, nor care,
what they are talking about.
First the ape blunder.
Now the infinite mass blunder.
(And a bunch in between I won't bring up)
Why don't you people catch up a little first on modern science, than
come back and start lecturing those who caught up already?
It will give a little more credibility to your ideas if you don't
blunder so much...
Just a friendly advice.
Regards,
Erwin Moller
Hello again u4z,
Post by Erwin Moller
Fact is is that Einstein mathematics wrt mass and energy have found to
be flawed.
What does 'wrt' mean? (I am not a native English speaker, in case you
haven't noticed.)
WRT - "with respect to..."
Post by Erwin Moller
Apart from that: What is flawed in which Einstein equation?
(Maybe you are right, I just don't have a clue what you are talking about.)
Post by Erwin Moller
As an unbeliever the burden of an explanation rests upon your
shoulders.
Assuming you mean that I must explain where the universe came from
(because I am an unbeliever), then you are clearly WRONG.
You are making a classic mistake, maybe on purpose.
The mere fact that *I* don't know something doesn't make *you* right.
Joe says all cheese from Greece is yellow.
U4z says all cheese from Greece is green.
Now you ask me what color cheese from Greece is.
I answer: I don't know.
Then you claim you are right and all cheese from Greece is green.
(But Joe could make the same logic mistake you just made and thus claim
cheese from Greece is yellow.)
Do you understand what I mean?
No. I was talking about Einsreins equations being faulty when using
modern physics and applications wrt the theoretical beginning of the
universe.

In fact modern physics itself admits that it cannot be proven that the
laws themselves as we know them, are applicable or even true in the
environment which existed before the onset of our current universe.

Cheese has noting to do with it since for all practical purposes, no
one really knows.

u4z
Harry F. Leopold
2010-09-29 22:38:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Erwin Moller
Post by Erwin Moller
Erwin Moller
<snip>
Post by Erwin Moller
Post by Erwin Moller
Post by u***@att.net
Post by DanielSan
Infinite mass?
Yes. Black holes a.k.a. "dark matter" defy Einstein and all known
physics.
u4z
One big problem with creationists is that they don't know, nor care,
what they are talking about.
First the ape blunder.
Now the infinite mass blunder.
(And a bunch in between I won't bring up)
Why don't you people catch up a little first on modern science, than
come back and start lecturing those who caught up already?
It will give a little more credibility to your ideas if you don't
blunder so much...
Just a friendly advice.
Regards,
Erwin Moller
Hello again u4z,
Post by Erwin Moller
Fact is is that Einstein mathematics wrt mass and energy have found to
be flawed.
What does 'wrt' mean? (I am not a native English speaker, in case you
haven't noticed.)
"With regard to"
Post by Erwin Moller
Apart from that: What is flawed in which Einstein equation?
(Maybe you are right, I just don't have a clue what you are talking about.)
Neither does he.


snip rest.
--
Harry F. Leopold
aa #2076
AA/Vet #4
The Prints of Darkness
(remove gene to email)

"Your god wears fuzzy, pink, bunny slippers."
Smiler
2010-09-29 22:57:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Erwin Moller
Post by Erwin Moller
Erwin Moller
<snip>
Post by Erwin Moller
Post by Erwin Moller
Post by u***@att.net
Post by DanielSan
Infinite mass?
Yes. Black holes a.k.a. "dark matter" defy Einstein and all known
physics.
One big problem with creationists is that they don't know, nor care,
what they are talking about.
First the ape blunder.
Now the infinite mass blunder.
(And a bunch in between I won't bring up)
Why don't you people catch up a little first on modern science, than
come back and start lecturing those who caught up already?
It will give a little more credibility to your ideas if you don't
blunder so much...
Just a friendly advice.
Fact is is that Einstein mathematics wrt mass and energy have found to
be flawed.
What does 'wrt' mean? (I am not a native English speaker, in case you
haven't noticed.)
Apart from that: What is flawed in which Einstein equation?
(Maybe you are right, I just don't have a clue what you are talking about.)
Neither does he.
--
Smiler,
The godless one. a.a.# 2279
All gods are tailored to order. They're made to
exactly fit the prejudices of their believers.
archie dux
2010-09-28 21:23:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by u***@att.net
Post by DanielSan
Post by u***@att.net
Post by u***@att.net
Post by DanielSan
Post by u***@att.net
Post by DanielSan
Post by u***@att.net
Post by u***@att.net
Post by u***@att.net
Post by u***@att.net
You meant 613 not 631. Your mistake.
Typo
Post by u***@att.net
Not only that but Jesus said there were only 2.
No, he didn't.  He said that the two summed up the law, but He also
said that not one jot or tittle of the law had passed away.
lojbab
You are speaking of the jesus you think evolved from an ape... right?
Evolved from an ape?  Care to define "ape"?
For clarification purposes please verify that you do not know the
meaning of "ape".
I know the meaning of ape.  It seems like you don't.  So, please,
provide your definition.  thanks.
Be advised that this thread is for believers (see "subject").
Yet it's being posted to alt.atheism. Just a heads up.
Post by u***@att.net
Please
verify that you do not understand the difference between an "ape" and
a "human" or else define either proving your status as an unbeliever.
I am an unbeliever.  But that is irrelevant to whether you know what an
"ape" is or not.
There*SNIP*
Blah, blah, blah.  Do you know what an "ape" is or not?
Insistent feller ain't ye?
Ok I will explain what evolutionists lie about. They say 'common
ancestor' became both an ape and a human. By default they are saying
that a rat is the "common ancestor" of the common ancestor since the
first 'common ancestor' is assumed to be a squirrel type creature.
Now. It's all completely absurd of course seeing that you must have a
'common ancestor' in place for every billion of years where a leap
occurred. (reptile to mammal, fish to reptile, amphibian to reptile,
amoeba to amphibian, bacteria to amoeba, and last but not least how
about the billions upon billions of years it took for chemical soup to
accidentally and randomly turn into bacterial DNA)
So an "ape" is a creature that has swallowed all of the above
deceptions of evolutionists hook, line and sinker and whines day in
and day out the following..... "prove god to me".
So, "ape", not being a modern great ape like humans and gorillas are, is
our ancestor.  It was confusing.
Now, what is "completely absurd"?  And what "leap"?  Are you suggesting
that modern animal "leaps" to another modern animal?  If so, you've got
evolution all wrong.
Ok. Let's hear your version beginning with the initial onset of the
universe itself.
No.
Good choice. It's impossible to explain mathematically, how at the
beginning... infinite mass occupied a finite volume.
Infinite mass?
Yes.
No. The universe does not have infinite mass.
Post by u***@att.net
Black holes a.k.a. "dark matter" defy Einstein
The current conception of black holes
comes directly from Einstein's theory
of General Relativity.

Dark matter in no way defies Einsteinian
physics.
Post by u***@att.net
and all known
physics.
In actual fact current physics has a great deal
to say about black holes.


archie
Post by u***@att.net
u4z
u***@att.net
2010-09-28 21:55:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by archie dux
Post by u***@att.net
Post by DanielSan
Post by u***@att.net
Post by u***@att.net
Post by DanielSan
Post by u***@att.net
Post by DanielSan
Post by u***@att.net
Post by u***@att.net
Post by u***@att.net
Post by u***@att.net
You meant 613 not 631. Your mistake.
Typo
Post by u***@att.net
Not only that but Jesus said there were only 2.
No, he didn't.  He said that the two summed up the law, but He also
said that not one jot or tittle of the law had passed away.
lojbab
You are speaking of the jesus you think evolved from an ape... right?
Evolved from an ape?  Care to define "ape"?
For clarification purposes please verify that you do not know the
meaning of "ape".
I know the meaning of ape.  It seems like you don't.  So, please,
provide your definition.  thanks.
Be advised that this thread is for believers (see "subject").
Yet it's being posted to alt.atheism. Just a heads up.
Post by u***@att.net
Please
verify that you do not understand the difference between an "ape" and
a "human" or else define either proving your status as an unbeliever.
I am an unbeliever.  But that is irrelevant to whether you know what an
"ape" is or not.
There*SNIP*
Blah, blah, blah.  Do you know what an "ape" is or not?
Insistent feller ain't ye?
Ok I will explain what evolutionists lie about. They say 'common
ancestor' became both an ape and a human. By default they are saying
that a rat is the "common ancestor" of the common ancestor since the
first 'common ancestor' is assumed to be a squirrel type creature.
Now. It's all completely absurd of course seeing that you must have a
'common ancestor' in place for every billion of years where a leap
occurred. (reptile to mammal, fish to reptile, amphibian to reptile,
amoeba to amphibian, bacteria to amoeba, and last but not least how
about the billions upon billions of years it took for chemical soup to
accidentally and randomly turn into bacterial DNA)
So an "ape" is a creature that has swallowed all of the above
deceptions of evolutionists hook, line and sinker and whines day in
and day out the following..... "prove god to me".
So, "ape", not being a modern great ape like humans and gorillas are, is
our ancestor.  It was confusing.
Now, what is "completely absurd"?  And what "leap"?  Are you suggesting
that modern animal "leaps" to another modern animal?  If so, you've got
evolution all wrong.
Ok. Let's hear your version beginning with the initial onset of the
universe itself.
No.
Good choice. It's impossible to explain mathematically, how at the
beginning... infinite mass occupied a finite volume.
Infinite mass?
Yes.
No. The universe does not have infinite mass.
Post by u***@att.net
Black holes a.k.a. "dark matter" defy Einstein
The current conception of black holes
comes directly from Einstein's theory
of General Relativity.
Dark matter in no way defies Einsteinian
physics.
Post by u***@att.net
and all known
physics.
In actual fact current physics has a great deal
to say about black holes.
archie
You don't know what you're talking about... much less what I'm talking
about.

u4z
archie dux
2010-09-28 22:00:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by u***@att.net
Post by u***@att.net
Post by DanielSan
Post by u***@att.net
Post by u***@att.net
Post by DanielSan
Post by u***@att.net
Post by DanielSan
Post by u***@att.net
Post by u***@att.net
Post by u***@att.net
Post by u***@att.net
You meant 613 not 631. Your mistake.
Typo
Post by u***@att.net
Not only that but Jesus said there were only 2.
No, he didn't.  He said that the two summed up the law, but He also
said that not one jot or tittle of the law had passed away.
lojbab
You are speaking of the jesus you think evolved from an ape... right?
Evolved from an ape?  Care to define "ape"?
For clarification purposes please verify that you do not know the
meaning of "ape".
I know the meaning of ape.  It seems like you don't.  So, please,
provide your definition.  thanks.
Be advised that this thread is for believers (see "subject").
Yet it's being posted to alt.atheism. Just a heads up.
Post by u***@att.net
Please
verify that you do not understand the difference between an "ape" and
a "human" or else define either proving your status as an unbeliever.
I am an unbeliever.  But that is irrelevant to whether you know what an
"ape" is or not.
There*SNIP*
Blah, blah, blah.  Do you know what an "ape" is or not?
Insistent feller ain't ye?
Ok I will explain what evolutionists lie about. They say 'common
ancestor' became both an ape and a human. By default they are saying
that a rat is the "common ancestor" of the common ancestor since the
first 'common ancestor' is assumed to be a squirrel type creature.
Now. It's all completely absurd of course seeing that you must have a
'common ancestor' in place for every billion of years where a leap
occurred. (reptile to mammal, fish to reptile, amphibian to reptile,
amoeba to amphibian, bacteria to amoeba, and last but not least how
about the billions upon billions of years it took for chemical soup to
accidentally and randomly turn into bacterial DNA)
So an "ape" is a creature that has swallowed all of the above
deceptions of evolutionists hook, line and sinker and whines day in
and day out the following..... "prove god to me".
So, "ape", not being a modern great ape like humans and gorillas are, is
our ancestor.  It was confusing.
Now, what is "completely absurd"?  And what "leap"?  Are you suggesting
that modern animal "leaps" to another modern animal?  If so, you've got
evolution all wrong.
Ok. Let's hear your version beginning with the initial onset of the
universe itself.
No.
Good choice. It's impossible to explain mathematically, how at the
beginning... infinite mass occupied a finite volume.
Infinite mass?
Yes.
No.  The universe does not have infinite mass.
Post by u***@att.net
Black holes a.k.a. "dark matter" defy Einstein
The current conception of black holes
comes directly from Einstein's theory
of General Relativity.
Dark matter in no way defies Einsteinian
physics.
Post by u***@att.net
 and all known
physics.
In actual fact current physics has a great deal
to say about black holes.
archie
You don't know what you're talking about... much less what I'm talking
about.
Your grudging surrender is hereby politely accepted.


archie
Post by u***@att.net
u4z
u***@att.net
2010-09-28 22:18:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by archie dux
Post by u***@att.net
Post by u***@att.net
Post by DanielSan
Post by u***@att.net
Post by u***@att.net
Post by DanielSan
Post by u***@att.net
Post by DanielSan
Post by u***@att.net
Post by u***@att.net
Post by u***@att.net
Post by u***@att.net
You meant 613 not 631. Your mistake.
Typo
Post by u***@att.net
Not only that but Jesus said there were only 2.
No, he didn't.  He said that the two summed up the law, but He also
said that not one jot or tittle of the law had passed away.
lojbab
You are speaking of the jesus you think evolved from an ape... right?
Evolved from an ape?  Care to define "ape"?
For clarification purposes please verify that you do not know the
meaning of "ape".
I know the meaning of ape.  It seems like you don't.  So, please,
provide your definition.  thanks.
Be advised that this thread is for believers (see "subject").
Yet it's being posted to alt.atheism. Just a heads up.
Post by u***@att.net
Please
verify that you do not understand the difference between an "ape" and
a "human" or else define either proving your status as an unbeliever.
I am an unbeliever.  But that is irrelevant to whether you know what an
"ape" is or not.
There*SNIP*
Blah, blah, blah.  Do you know what an "ape" is or not?
Insistent feller ain't ye?
Ok I will explain what evolutionists lie about. They say 'common
ancestor' became both an ape and a human. By default they are saying
that a rat is the "common ancestor" of the common ancestor since the
first 'common ancestor' is assumed to be a squirrel type creature.
Now. It's all completely absurd of course seeing that you must have a
'common ancestor' in place for every billion of years where a leap
occurred. (reptile to mammal, fish to reptile, amphibian to reptile,
amoeba to amphibian, bacteria to amoeba, and last but not least how
about the billions upon billions of years it took for chemical soup to
accidentally and randomly turn into bacterial DNA)
So an "ape" is a creature that has swallowed all of the above
deceptions of evolutionists hook, line and sinker and whines day in
and day out the following..... "prove god to me".
So, "ape", not being a modern great ape like humans and gorillas are, is
our ancestor.  It was confusing.
Now, what is "completely absurd"?  And what "leap"?  Are you suggesting
that modern animal "leaps" to another modern animal?  If so, you've got
evolution all wrong.
Ok. Let's hear your version beginning with the initial onset of the
universe itself.
No.
Good choice. It's impossible to explain mathematically, how at the
beginning... infinite mass occupied a finite volume.
Infinite mass?
Yes.
No.  The universe does not have infinite mass.
Post by u***@att.net
Black holes a.k.a. "dark matter" defy Einstein
The current conception of black holes
comes directly from Einstein's theory
of General Relativity.
Dark matter in no way defies Einsteinian
physics.
Post by u***@att.net
 and all known
physics.
In actual fact current physics has a great deal
to say about black holes.
archie
You don't know what you're talking about... much less what I'm talking
about.
Your grudging surrender is hereby politely accepted.
archie
It's not that. I see no need for you to worship me if I not only fully
explain the Bible, but also quantum loop theory as well as the
superstring theories of modern physics concerning multiple time/space
dimensions and the error of Einsteinium physics.

I only hope that if/when you meet another prophet of God... that you
display a bit more respect and humility in order to avoid embarrassing
yourself.

u4z
archie dux
2010-09-29 01:32:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by u***@att.net
Post by archie dux
Post by u***@att.net
Post by u***@att.net
Post by DanielSan
Post by u***@att.net
Post by u***@att.net
Post by DanielSan
Post by u***@att.net
Post by DanielSan
Post by u***@att.net
Post by u***@att.net
Post by u***@att.net
Post by u***@att.net
You meant 613 not 631. Your mistake.
Typo
Post by u***@att.net
Not only that but Jesus said there were only 2.
No, he didn't.  He said that the two summed up the law, but He also
said that not one jot or tittle of the law had passed away.
lojbab
You are speaking of the jesus you think evolved from an ape... right?
Evolved from an ape?  Care to define "ape"?
For clarification purposes please verify that you do not know the
meaning of "ape".
I know the meaning of ape.  It seems like you don't.  So, please,
provide your definition.  thanks.
Be advised that this thread is for believers (see "subject").
Yet it's being posted to alt.atheism. Just a heads up.
Post by u***@att.net
Please
verify that you do not understand the difference between an "ape" and
a "human" or else define either proving your status as an unbeliever.
I am an unbeliever.  But that is irrelevant to whether you know what an
"ape" is or not.
There*SNIP*
Blah, blah, blah.  Do you know what an "ape" is or not?
Insistent feller ain't ye?
Ok I will explain what evolutionists lie about. They say 'common
ancestor' became both an ape and a human. By default they are saying
that a rat is the "common ancestor" of the common ancestor since the
first 'common ancestor' is assumed to be a squirrel type creature.
Now. It's all completely absurd of course seeing that you must have a
'common ancestor' in place for every billion of years where a leap
occurred. (reptile to mammal, fish to reptile, amphibian to reptile,
amoeba to amphibian, bacteria to amoeba, and last but not least how
about the billions upon billions of years it took for chemical soup to
accidentally and randomly turn into bacterial DNA)
So an "ape" is a creature that has swallowed all of the above
deceptions of evolutionists hook, line and sinker and whines day in
and day out the following..... "prove god to me".
So, "ape", not being a modern great ape like humans and gorillas are, is
our ancestor.  It was confusing.
Now, what is "completely absurd"?  And what "leap"?  Are you suggesting
that modern animal "leaps" to another modern animal?  If so, you've got
evolution all wrong.
Ok. Let's hear your version beginning with the initial onset of the
universe itself.
No.
Good choice. It's impossible to explain mathematically, how at the
beginning... infinite mass occupied a finite volume.
Infinite mass?
Yes.
No.  The universe does not have infinite mass.
Post by u***@att.net
Black holes a.k.a. "dark matter" defy Einstein
The current conception of black holes
comes directly from Einstein's theory
of General Relativity.
Dark matter in no way defies Einsteinian
physics.
Post by u***@att.net
 and all known
physics.
In actual fact current physics has a great deal
to say about black holes.
archie
You don't know what you're talking about... much less what I'm talking
about.
Your grudging surrender is hereby politely accepted.
archie
It's not that. I see no need for you to worship me if I not only fully
explain the Bible, but also quantum loop theory as well as the
superstring theories of modern physics concerning multiple time/space
dimensions and the error of Einsteinium physics.
I only hope that if/when you meet another prophet of God... that you
display a bit more respect and humility in order to avoid embarrassing
yourself.
u4z
Your stumbling admission of defeat is hereby kindly accepted.


archie
u***@att.net
2010-09-29 03:39:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by archie dux
Post by u***@att.net
Post by archie dux
Post by u***@att.net
Post by u***@att.net
Post by DanielSan
Post by u***@att.net
Post by u***@att.net
Post by DanielSan
Post by u***@att.net
Post by DanielSan
Post by u***@att.net
Post by u***@att.net
Post by u***@att.net
Post by u***@att.net
You meant 613 not 631. Your mistake.
Typo
Post by u***@att.net
Not only that but Jesus said there were only 2.
No, he didn't.  He said that the two summed up the law, but He also
said that not one jot or tittle of the law had passed away.
lojbab
You are speaking of the jesus you think evolved from an ape... right?
Evolved from an ape?  Care to define "ape"?
For clarification purposes please verify that you do not know the
meaning of "ape".
I know the meaning of ape.  It seems like you don't.  So, please,
provide your definition.  thanks.
Be advised that this thread is for believers (see "subject").
Yet it's being posted to alt.atheism. Just a heads up.
Post by u***@att.net
Please
verify that you do not understand the difference between an "ape" and
a "human" or else define either proving your status as an unbeliever.
I am an unbeliever.  But that is irrelevant to whether you know what an
"ape" is or not.
There*SNIP*
Blah, blah, blah.  Do you know what an "ape" is or not?
Insistent feller ain't ye?
Ok I will explain what evolutionists lie about. They say 'common
ancestor' became both an ape and a human. By default they are saying
that a rat is the "common ancestor" of the common ancestor since the
first 'common ancestor' is assumed to be a squirrel type creature.
Now. It's all completely absurd of course seeing that you must have a
'common ancestor' in place for every billion of years where a leap
occurred. (reptile to mammal, fish to reptile, amphibian to reptile,
amoeba to amphibian, bacteria to amoeba, and last but not least how
about the billions upon billions of years it took for chemical soup to
accidentally and randomly turn into bacterial DNA)
So an "ape" is a creature that has swallowed all of the above
deceptions of evolutionists hook, line and sinker and whines day in
and day out the following..... "prove god to me".
So, "ape", not being a modern great ape like humans and gorillas are, is
our ancestor.  It was confusing.
Now, what is "completely absurd"?  And what "leap"?  Are you suggesting
that modern animal "leaps" to another modern animal?  If so, you've got
evolution all wrong.
Ok. Let's hear your version beginning with the initial onset of the
universe itself.
No.
Good choice. It's impossible to explain mathematically, how at the
beginning... infinite mass occupied a finite volume.
Infinite mass?
Yes.
No.  The universe does not have infinite mass.
Post by u***@att.net
Black holes a.k.a. "dark matter" defy Einstein
The current conception of black holes
comes directly from Einstein's theory
of General Relativity.
Dark matter in no way defies Einsteinian
physics.
Post by u***@att.net
 and all known
physics.
In actual fact current physics has a great deal
to say about black holes.
archie
You don't know what you're talking about... much less what I'm talking
about.
Your grudging surrender is hereby politely accepted.
archie
It's not that. I see no need for you to worship me if I not only fully
explain the Bible, but also quantum loop theory as well as the
superstring theories of modern physics concerning multiple time/space
dimensions and the error of Einsteinium physics.
I only hope that if/when you meet another prophet of God... that you
display a bit more respect and humility in order to avoid embarrassing
yourself.
u4z
Your stumbling admission of defeat is hereby kindly accepted.
archie
Sure. No problem. I realize that despite my best efforts some may be
lost forever and end up in hell.

u4z
Ralph
2010-09-29 20:31:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by u***@att.net
Post by archie dux
Post by u***@att.net
Post by archie dux
Post by u***@att.net
Post by archie dux
Post by u***@att.net
Post by DanielSan
Post by u***@att.net
Post by u***@att.net
Post by DanielSan
Post by u***@att.net
Post by DanielSan
Post by DanielSan
Post by u***@att.net
Post by DanielSan
Post by u***@att.net
Post by DanielSan
Post by u***@att.net
Post by Bob LeChevalier
Post by u***@att.net
You meant 613 not 631. Your mistake.
Typo
Post by u***@att.net
Not only that but Jesus said there were only 2.
No, he didn't. He said that the two summed up the law, but He also
said that not one jot or tittle of the law had passed away.
lojbab
You are speaking of the jesus you think evolved from an ape... right?
Evolved from an ape? Care to define "ape"?
For clarification purposes please verify that you do not know the
meaning of "ape".
I know the meaning of ape. It seems like you don't. So, please,
provide your definition. thanks.
Be advised that this thread is for believers (see "subject").
Yet it's being posted to alt.atheism. Just a heads up.
Post by u***@att.net
Please
verify that you do not understand the difference between an "ape" and
a "human" or else define either proving your status as an unbeliever.
I am an unbeliever. But that is irrelevant to whether you know what an
"ape" is or not.
There*SNIP*
Blah, blah, blah. Do you know what an "ape" is or not?
Insistent feller ain't ye?
Ok I will explain what evolutionists lie about. They say 'common
ancestor' became both an ape and a human. By default they are saying
that a rat is the "common ancestor" of the common ancestor since the
first 'common ancestor' is assumed to be a squirrel type creature.
Now. It's all completely absurd of course seeing that you must have a
'common ancestor' in place for every billion of years where a leap
occurred. (reptile to mammal, fish to reptile, amphibian to reptile,
amoeba to amphibian, bacteria to amoeba, and last but not least how
about the billions upon billions of years it took for chemical soup to
accidentally and randomly turn into bacterial DNA)
So an "ape" is a creature that has swallowed all of the above
deceptions of evolutionists hook, line and sinker and whines day in
and day out the following..... "prove god to me".
So, "ape", not being a modern great ape like humans and gorillas are, is
our ancestor. It was confusing.
Now, what is "completely absurd"? And what "leap"? Are you suggesting
that modern animal "leaps" to another modern animal? If so, you've got
evolution all wrong.
Ok. Let's hear your version beginning with the initial onset of the
universe itself.
No.
Good choice. It's impossible to explain mathematically, how at the
beginning... infinite mass occupied a finite volume.
Infinite mass?
Yes.
No. The universe does not have infinite mass.
Post by u***@att.net
Black holes a.k.a. "dark matter" defy Einstein
The current conception of black holes
comes directly from Einstein's theory
of General Relativity.
Dark matter in no way defies Einsteinian
physics.
Post by u***@att.net
and all known
physics.
In actual fact current physics has a great deal
to say about black holes.
archie
You don't know what you're talking about... much less what I'm talking
about.
Your grudging surrender is hereby politely accepted.
archie
It's not that. I see no need for you to worship me if I not only fully
explain the Bible, but also quantum loop theory as well as the
superstring theories of modern physics concerning multiple time/space
dimensions and the error of Einsteinium physics.
I only hope that if/when you meet another prophet of God... that you
display a bit more respect and humility in order to avoid embarrassing
yourself.
u4z
Your stumbling admission of defeat is hereby kindly accepted.
archie
Sure. No problem. I realize that despite my best efforts some may be
lost forever and end up in hell.
u4z
There is no hell!
Olrik
2010-09-29 03:40:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by u***@att.net
Post by archie dux
Post by u***@att.net
Post by archie dux
Post by u***@att.net
Post by DanielSan
Post by u***@att.net
Post by u***@att.net
Post by DanielSan
Post by u***@att.net
Post by DanielSan
Post by DanielSan
Post by u***@att.net
Post by DanielSan
Post by u***@att.net
Post by DanielSan
Post by u***@att.net
Post by Bob LeChevalier
Post by u***@att.net
You meant 613 not 631. Your mistake.
Typo
Post by u***@att.net
Not only that but Jesus said there were only 2.
No, he didn't. He said that the two summed up the law, but He also
said that not one jot or tittle of the law had passed away.
lojbab
You are speaking of the jesus you think evolved from an ape... right?
Evolved from an ape? Care to define "ape"?
For clarification purposes please verify that you do not know the
meaning of "ape".
I know the meaning of ape. It seems like you don't. So, please,
provide your definition. thanks.
Be advised that this thread is for believers (see "subject").
Yet it's being posted to alt.atheism. Just a heads up.
Post by u***@att.net
Please
verify that you do not understand the difference between an "ape" and
a "human" or else define either proving your status as an unbeliever.
I am an unbeliever. But that is irrelevant to whether you know what an
"ape" is or not.
There*SNIP*
Blah, blah, blah. Do you know what an "ape" is or not?
Insistent feller ain't ye?
Ok I will explain what evolutionists lie about. They say 'common
ancestor' became both an ape and a human. By default they are saying
that a rat is the "common ancestor" of the common ancestor since the
first 'common ancestor' is assumed to be a squirrel type creature.
Now. It's all completely absurd of course seeing that you must have a
'common ancestor' in place for every billion of years where a leap
occurred. (reptile to mammal, fish to reptile, amphibian to reptile,
amoeba to amphibian, bacteria to amoeba, and last but not least how
about the billions upon billions of years it took for chemical soup to
accidentally and randomly turn into bacterial DNA)
So an "ape" is a creature that has swallowed all of the above
deceptions of evolutionists hook, line and sinker and whines day in
and day out the following..... "prove god to me".
So, "ape", not being a modern great ape like humans and gorillas are, is
our ancestor. It was confusing.
Now, what is "completely absurd"? And what "leap"? Are you suggesting
that modern animal "leaps" to another modern animal? If so, you've got
evolution all wrong.
Ok. Let's hear your version beginning with the initial onset of the
universe itself.
No.
Good choice. It's impossible to explain mathematically, how at the
beginning... infinite mass occupied a finite volume.
Infinite mass?
Yes.
No. The universe does not have infinite mass.
Post by u***@att.net
Black holes a.k.a. "dark matter" defy Einstein
The current conception of black holes
comes directly from Einstein's theory
of General Relativity.
Dark matter in no way defies Einsteinian
physics.
Post by u***@att.net
and all known
physics.
In actual fact current physics has a great deal
to say about black holes.
archie
You don't know what you're talking about... much less what I'm talking
about.
Your grudging surrender is hereby politely accepted.
archie
It's not that. I see no need for you to worship me if I not only fully
explain the Bible, but also quantum loop theory as well as the
superstring theories of modern physics concerning multiple time/space
dimensions and the error of Einsteinium physics.
BWWWWWWWWWWWWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Post by u***@att.net
I only hope that if/when you meet another prophet of God... that you
display a bit more respect and humility in order to avoid embarrassing
yourself.
So you basically admit being a kook
Post by u***@att.net
u4z
Bob LeChevalier
2010-09-29 12:16:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by u***@att.net
Post by DanielSan
Blah, blah, blah. Do you know what an "ape" is or not?
Insistent feller ain't ye?
Ok I will explain what evolutionists lie about.
No. You are just lying about what you lie about.
Post by u***@att.net
They say 'common
ancestor' became both an ape and a human. By default they are saying
that a rat is the "common ancestor" of the common ancestor
They are saying no such thing.
Post by u***@att.net
since the first 'common ancestor' is assumed to be a squirrel type creature.
No, liar.

lojbab
---
Bob LeChevalier - artificial linguist; genealogist
***@lojban.org Lojban language www.lojban.org
Yap
2010-09-28 04:04:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by DanielSan
Post by u***@att.net
Post by u***@att.net
Post by u***@att.net
Post by u***@att.net
You meant 613 not 631. Your mistake.
Typo
Post by u***@att.net
Not only that but Jesus said there were only 2.
No, he didn't.  He said that the two summed up the law, but He also
said that not one jot or tittle of the law had passed away.
lojbab
You are speaking of the jesus you think evolved from an ape... right?
Evolved from an ape?  Care to define "ape"?
For clarification purposes please verify that you do not know the
meaning of "ape".
I know the meaning of ape.  It seems like you don't.  So, please,
provide your definition.  thanks.
Be advised that this thread is for believers (see "subject").
Yet it's being posted to alt.atheism. Just a heads up.
Post by u***@att.net
Please
verify that you do not understand the difference between an "ape" and
a "human" or else define either proving your status as an unbeliever.
I am an unbeliever.  But that is irrelevant to whether you know what an
"ape" is or not.
There are ATHEISTS then there are atheists. I have met both.  Those
who fall into the category of false prophets are dammed, and those who
have honestly never known better are better off....
Not computable.
Please talk properly.
2Peter 2:19     While they promise them liberty, they themselves are
the servants of corruption: for of whom a man is overcome, of the same
is he brought in bondage.
Incomputable
2Peter 2:20     For if after they have escaped the pollutions of the
world through the knowledge of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, they
are again entangled therein, and overcome, the latter end is worse
with them than the beginning.
There are a lot of lords in UK, which one?
2Peter 2:21     For it had been better for them not to have known the
way of righteousness, than, after they have known it, to turn from the
holy commandment delivered unto them.
The commandments were for the barbarians.
Are you one?
So many so called "atheists" are actually x-christians who are doomed,
and who are playing games even though their ultimate destiny is hell
itself, while OTOH I hold hope that a few so called "atheists" may
actually be among those who've never for some reason or another, been
subjected to the truth of God.
Atheists have departed the dark, but you are still in it.
Religious truth has a different meaning than the real world.
No matter. The gates of hell shall not stop me, having contact with
God myself...
Delusion on your part is noted.
But don't say that we aren't throwing you a life saver rope.....
Matthew 16:17-18        And Jesus answered and said unto him, "Blessed
art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto
thee, but my Father which is in heaven. And I say also unto thee, That
thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the
gates of hell shall not prevail against it". - Jesus
Useless quote, from the bronze age.
The hellbent 'atheist' cannot and will not ever be able to comprehend
how it is that the Kingdom of God is directed by revelation from God
Himself.
Is there a kingdom somewhere? Where?
Ultimately, this is good news. In fact it is the best of good news
possible in that via repentance all men everywhere have equal access
to God and the Kingdom of God.
There is no god in the world of atheism.
You are just wasting your time, hoping for empty access to sky pixie?
Meanwhile despots are convinced that they can dupe you into being
slaves in the kingdom of men.
Our kingdom is real, and our destinies rest on our own hands.
Yours is unrealizable, but you pretend workable.
May be you need the hope to survive, we don't.
u4z
Bob LeChevalier
2010-09-29 12:13:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by u***@att.net
Post by DanielSan
Post by u***@att.net
Be advised that this thread is for believers (see "subject").
Yet it's being posted to alt.atheism. Just a heads up.
Post by u***@att.net
Please
verify that you do not understand the difference between an "ape" and
a "human" or else define either proving your status as an unbeliever.
I am an unbeliever. But that is irrelevant to whether you know what an
"ape" is or not.
There are ATHEISTS then there are atheists.
There are idiots and then there is YOU, the IDIOT.
Post by u***@att.net
I have met both. Those
who fall into the category of false prophets are dammed, and those who
have honestly never known better are better off....
None of them are "believers", by definition.

lojbab
---
Bob LeChevalier - artificial linguist; genealogist
***@lojban.org Lojban language www.lojban.org
Yap
2010-09-28 03:53:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by u***@att.net
Post by u***@att.net
You meant 613 not 631. Your mistake.
Typo
Post by u***@att.net
Not only that but Jesus said there were only 2.
No, he didn't.  He said that the two summed up the law, but He also
said that not one jot or tittle of the law had passed away.
lojbab
You are speaking of the jesus you think evolved from an ape... right?
If there was a jesus, he was an ape too.
A supposed god wouldn't be dead, would it?
Post by u***@att.net
u4z
Bob LeChevalier
2010-09-29 12:11:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by u***@att.net
Post by Bob LeChevalier
Post by u***@att.net
You meant 613 not 631. Your mistake.
Typo
Post by u***@att.net
Not only that but Jesus said there were only 2.
No, he didn't. He said that the two summed up the law, but He also
said that not one jot or tittle of the law had passed away.
lojbab
You are speaking of the jesus you think evolved from an ape... right?
We've done this one before several times, racist.

If He was a member of homo sapiens, then He WAS an ape. But no one
ever examine His DNA.

lojbab
---
Bob LeChevalier - artificial linguist; genealogist
***@lojban.org Lojban language www.lojban.org
Smiler
2010-09-29 23:01:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bob LeChevalier
Post by u***@att.net
Post by Bob LeChevalier
Post by u***@att.net
You meant 613 not 631. Your mistake.
Typo
Post by u***@att.net
Not only that but Jesus said there were only 2.
No, he didn't. He said that the two summed up the law, but He also
said that not one jot or tittle of the law had passed away.
lojbab
You are speaking of the jesus you think evolved from an ape... right?
We've done this one before several times, racist.
If He was a member of homo sapiens, then He WAS an ape. But no one ever
examine His DNA.
Fictional characters tend not to have any DNA which can be examined.
--
Smiler,
The godless one. a.a.# 2279
All gods are tailored to order. They're made to
exactly fit the prejudices of their believers.
Virgil
2010-09-26 04:05:05 UTC
Permalink
In article
Post by AllSeeing-I
Upon seeing God archie and virgil
I can not speak for Archie, but as for myself, I have seen no gods, nor
any evidence that there are any gods to be seen for that matter.

And which god (by some name other than "god" or "true god" which they
all claim) does IllSeeing-Id falsely claim anyone has ever seen?
Caranx latus
2010-09-26 03:36:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by AllSeeing-I
On Sep 24, 8:04 am, Erwin Moller
Post by Erwin Moller
Post by u***@att.net
"Vengeance belongeth unto me, I will recompense, saith the Lord." -
(Hebrews 10:30)
This is to believers only. So far I've met and disputed with godless
pagans here and have quite frankly found the experience to be no great
challenge.
That is because you cannot read for comprehension.
You have plenty of challenges.
You simply choose to leave them be.
If you need one at random: Why should anybody take your version of God
more seriously than any other?
for example: Why not Thor?
Post by u***@att.net
So I thought to encourage you believers that might be here.
That is the only thing you do.
Don't pretend you are finished converting the atheists.
[I snipped the rest because it wasn't meant for me.]
Post by u***@att.net
u4z (a son of Zion and Watchman upon the wall)
Now, please tell this ignorant pagan: What does a watchman on the wall
do exactly?
Erwin Moller
--
"There are two ways of constructing a software design: One way is to
make it so simple that there are obviously no deficiencies, and the
other way is to make it so complicated that there are no obvious
deficiencies. The first method is far more difficult."
-- C.A.R. Hoare
Thor was cast down to Earth and forced to live among humans as
punishment. Satan and his crew were kicked out of heaven by Michael
and Gabriell and forced to live among humans. Thor is Satan. They are
known in the bible as "the fallen Angels".
Many of the Greek and Roman gods are just other names for the original
Sumer Gods in their respective language. A different name does not
mean a different god.
So your whine about "which god" is moot. The atheist arguments usually
are moot because they originate from a lack of understanding.
What did God say? God said my people perish because of lack of
knowledge.
Try learning your subject matter heathen.
There are gods. And then, there is the one true GOD.
Praised be the name of Loki.
Post by AllSeeing-I
Now that you know this, there will be no excuse for your refusing God
on the last day when judgment comes to us all.
You will be in the awkward position of having to say "I simply refused
to believe".
Actually, "I simply had no reason to believe. Honestly, Loki, you
really could have included some people with a clue amongst your more
rabid adherents, couldn't you? I mean, really."
AllSeeing-I
2010-09-28 22:41:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Caranx latus
Post by AllSeeing-I
On Sep 24, 8:04 am, Erwin Moller
Post by Erwin Moller
Post by u***@att.net
"Vengeance belongeth unto me, I will recompense, saith the Lord." -
(Hebrews 10:30)
This is to believers only. So far I've met and disputed with godless
pagans here and have quite frankly found the experience to be no great
challenge.
That is because you cannot read for comprehension.
You have plenty of challenges.
You simply choose to leave them be.
If you need one at random: Why should anybody take your version of God
more seriously than any other?
for example: Why not Thor?
Post by u***@att.net
So I thought to encourage you believers that might be here.
That is the only thing you do.
Don't pretend you are finished converting the atheists.
[I snipped the rest because it wasn't meant for me.]
Post by u***@att.net
u4z (a son of Zion and Watchman upon the wall)
Now, please tell this ignorant pagan: What does a watchman on the wall
do exactly?
Erwin Moller
--
"There are two ways of constructing a software design: One way is to
make it so simple that there are obviously no deficiencies, and the
other way is to make it so complicated that there are no obvious
deficiencies. The first method is far more difficult."
-- C.A.R. Hoare
Thor was cast down to Earth and forced to live among humans as
punishment. Satan and his crew were kicked out of heaven by Michael
and Gabriell and forced to live among humans. Thor is Satan. They are
known in the bible as "the fallen Angels".
Many of the Greek and Roman gods are just other names for the original
Sumer Gods in their respective language. A different name does not
mean a different god.
So your whine about "which god" is moot. The atheist arguments usually
are moot because they originate from a lack of understanding.
What did God say? God said my people perish because of lack of
knowledge.
Try learning your subject matter heathen.
There are gods. And then, there is the one true GOD.
Praised be the name of Loki.
Post by AllSeeing-I
Now that you know this, there will be no excuse for your refusing God
on the last day when judgment comes to us all.
You will be in the awkward position of having to say "I simply refused
to believe".
Actually, "I simply had no reason to believe. Honestly, Loki, you
really could have included some people with a clue amongst your more
rabid adherents, couldn't you? I mean, really."
"Doubting Thomas"

Look it up, fish
Caranx latus
2010-09-28 22:45:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by AllSeeing-I
Post by Caranx latus
Post by AllSeeing-I
On Sep 24, 8:04 am, Erwin Moller
Post by Erwin Moller
Post by u***@att.net
"Vengeance belongeth unto me, I will recompense, saith the Lord." -
(Hebrews 10:30)
This is to believers only. So far I've met and disputed with godless
pagans here and have quite frankly found the experience to be no great
challenge.
That is because you cannot read for comprehension.
You have plenty of challenges.
You simply choose to leave them be.
If you need one at random: Why should anybody take your version of God
more seriously than any other?
for example: Why not Thor?
Post by u***@att.net
So I thought to encourage you believers that might be here.
That is the only thing you do.
Don't pretend you are finished converting the atheists.
[I snipped the rest because it wasn't meant for me.]
Post by u***@att.net
u4z (a son of Zion and Watchman upon the wall)
Now, please tell this ignorant pagan: What does a watchman on the wall
do exactly?
Erwin Moller
--
"There are two ways of constructing a software design: One way is to
make it so simple that there are obviously no deficiencies, and the
other way is to make it so complicated that there are no obvious
deficiencies. The first method is far more difficult."
-- C.A.R. Hoare
Thor was cast down to Earth and forced to live among humans as
punishment. Satan and his crew were kicked out of heaven by Michael
and Gabriell and forced to live among humans. Thor is Satan. They are
known in the bible as "the fallen Angels".
Many of the Greek and Roman gods are just other names for the original
Sumer Gods in their respective language. A different name does not
mean a different god.
So your whine about "which god" is moot. The atheist arguments usually
are moot because they originate from a lack of understanding.
What did God say? God said my people perish because of lack of
knowledge.
Try learning your subject matter heathen.
There are gods. And then, there is the one true GOD.
Praised be the name of Loki.
Post by AllSeeing-I
Now that you know this, there will be no excuse for your refusing God
on the last day when judgment comes to us all.
You will be in the awkward position of having to say "I simply refused
to believe".
Actually, "I simply had no reason to believe. Honestly, Loki, you
really could have included some people with a clue amongst your more
rabid adherents, couldn't you? I mean, really."
"Doubting Thomas"
Look it up, fish
"There's a sucker born every minute."

Look it up, [M]adape.
archie dux
2010-09-29 01:34:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by AllSeeing-I
Post by Caranx latus
Post by AllSeeing-I
On Sep 24, 8:04 am, Erwin Moller
Post by Erwin Moller
Post by u***@att.net
"Vengeance belongeth unto me, I will recompense, saith the Lord." -
(Hebrews 10:30)
This is to believers only. So far I've met and disputed with godless
pagans here and have quite frankly found the experience to be no great
challenge.
That is because you cannot read for comprehension.
You have plenty of challenges.
You simply choose to leave them be.
If you need one at random: Why should anybody take your version of God
more seriously than any other?
for example: Why not Thor?
Post by u***@att.net
So I thought to encourage you believers that might be here.
That is the only thing you do.
Don't pretend you are finished converting the atheists.
[I snipped the rest because it wasn't meant for me.]
Post by u***@att.net
u4z (a son of Zion and Watchman upon the wall)
Now, please tell this ignorant pagan: What does a watchman on the wall
do exactly?
Erwin Moller
--
"There are two ways of constructing a software design: One way is to
make it so simple that there are obviously no deficiencies, and the
other way is to make it so complicated that there are no obvious
deficiencies. The first method is far more difficult."
-- C.A.R. Hoare
Thor was cast down to Earth and forced to live among humans as
punishment. Satan and his crew were kicked out of heaven by Michael
and Gabriell and forced to live among humans. Thor is Satan. They are
known in the bible as "the fallen Angels".
Many of the Greek and Roman gods are just other names for the original
Sumer Gods in their respective language. A different name does not
mean a different god.
So your whine about "which god" is moot. The atheist arguments usually
are moot because they originate from a lack of understanding.
What did God say? God said my people perish because of lack of
knowledge.
Try learning your subject matter heathen.
There are gods. And then, there is the one true GOD.
Praised be the name of Loki.
Post by AllSeeing-I
Now that you know this, there will be no excuse for your refusing God
on the last day when judgment comes to us all.
You will be in the awkward position of having to say "I simply refused
to believe".
Actually, "I simply had no reason to believe. Honestly, Loki, you
really could have included some people with a clue amongst your more
rabid adherents, couldn't you? I mean, really."
"Doubting Thomas"
Look it up, fish
He should look up the story of Thomas?

I take it you didn't see today's story regarding
the Pew survey demonstrating that atheists
are more familiar with the Bible and Christianity
than Christians are.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-religion-survey-20100928,0,3225238.story


archie
Smiler
2010-09-25 03:09:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Erwin Moller
Post by u***@att.net
"Vengeance belongeth unto me, I will recompense, saith the Lord." -
(Hebrews 10:30)
This is to believers only. So far I've met and disputed with godless
pagans here and have quite frankly found the experience to be no great
challenge.
That is because you cannot read for comprehension.
You have plenty of challenges.
You simply choose to leave them be.
If you need one at random: Why should anybody take your version of God
more seriously than any other?
for example: Why not Thor?
Post by u***@att.net
So I thought to encourage you believers that might be here.
That is the only thing you do.
Don't pretend you are finished converting the atheists.
[I snipped the rest because it wasn't meant for me.]
Post by u***@att.net
u4z (a son of Zion and Watchman upon the wall)
Now, please tell this ignorant pagan: What does a watchman on the wall
do exactly?
Stops the wall from being stolen?
:-)
--
Smiler,
The godless one. a.a.# 2279
All gods are tailored to order. They're made to
exactly fit the prejudices of their believers.
Loading...