horsefeathers

He's trying to get a TAN!!!

.................................. the number is more like 600 commandments. ......................

You mean they had CASA way back then???????

Jeez, the Invisible Man is shorter than I thought.

But, why does he need glasses? His retina is invisible, thus photons pass through, thus he is blind, so WHY THE GLASSES???

PLEASE EXPLAIN!

That cannot be a picture of Walmart customers.Neither is grossly obese.

 

Neither is clad in outrageous clothing

 

Neither is extruding from their clothing.

 

OME

On our recent trip to Seattle, we were introduced by our hosts to Walmart Bingo !!

Walmart Bingo

To play walmart bingo, all you have to do is google "walmart bingo". find the playing card, and print it. You then go to walmart and attempt to get a row horizontal, vertical, or diagonal! They have squares that say:

- "rat tail" hair style

- kid with no shoes

- unattended crying children

If you see them, cross it off!

Anyone know the origins of Prester John? It's an ancient name which is found in literature in several countries down through the centuries, may have some religious connotation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prester_John

OR

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12400b.htm

Hmmm, have they ever been seen in the same room together at the same time ..... just saying ...

And thus, with just the merest innuendo, and slightest push in the right direction, a new conspiracy theory sees light of day.

hehehehehehe

love it

Welcome back Gnu.

But seriously, WTF are you talking about?

If referring to Darwinian evolution theory you haven't offered any scientific enlightenment rg. You folk cling to this one so desperately, I'm just pointing out the emperors lack of clothes - no evidence of DNA being added, no mechanism to even do this, no example of one species transitioning into another, no example of abiogensis or how that might ever happen, no reason as to why the 2nd law of thermodynamics must be inverted when considering this theory but not for anything else - the list goes on and on. Instead of throwing in one sentence why don't you start by explaining to us the use of partially formed sex organs and how they became functional over time for example? And with examples?

here ya go GG ( and turbo could have a quick read as well) - proof of DNA transfer across multi-cellular organisms. I know its not in the Bible ( or indeed any religious text, probably), but please read it, and understand that it doesn't conflict with your religious views. This is just the way the world is.

Confirmation That Photosynthesizing Sea Slugs Steal Genes From Algae

http://io9.com/confirmation-that-photosynthesizing-sea-slugs-steal-gen-1683702602

If you eat enough of those chicks at KFC, you might grow your own breasts. Nev

what a fowl comment

.....(gravi ounces)?...... Nev

Perhaps you mean Onion Gravy?, and remembering my mum's gravy, it could congeal and bind just about anything in the known universe. Maybe you're on to something there

We need a Law of Tactics then.We know the force of gravity between two bodies is proportional to their mass(es) and the distance between them, but we have no idea where the force comes from. Nev

Gravitons Nev. It's gravitons all the way down

Can we clear up some definitions being thrown around here please?

The word THEORY

According to the National Academies of Sciences, "some scientific explanations are so well established that no new evidence is likely to alter them. The explanation becomes a scientific theory.

In everyday language a theory means a hunch or speculation. Not so in science.

In science, the word theory refers to a comprehensive explanation of an important feature of nature supported by facts gathered over time. Theories also allow scientists to make predictions about as yet unobserved phenomena".

Laws of Science

Laws differ from scientific theories in that they do not posit a mechanism or explanation of phenomena: they are merely distillations of the results of repeated observation. For example, Newtons 3 laws of motion.

Newton didn't invent gravity, but be posited a theory of gravity to explain observations. His laws are a mathematical description of observed behaviour. As to whether laws are discovered or invented, go talk to a good scientific philosopher. I personally think laws are discovered, but the maths behind them is an "invention". Boyle's Laws describe gaseous behaviour, but gases were behaving this way since the big bang, hence the 'discovery' of the law was possible. The invention (for want of a better term) component was a mathematical method of describing the law.

And of course, new theories and laws pop up all the time, which is where the religious brethren amongst us differ from those of a scientific bent, in that the bible cant change, no matter what the evidence, or the use of Tony Abbottesque verbal gymnastics.

Hey by the way Turbs, where is this proof about evolution being wrong that you promised?

For those who are interesting in going , here is an article published today by a fellow Australian:

http://billmuehlenberg.com/2014/12/08/atheists-and-the-afterlife/

ah sorry i couldnt reply earlier, I was laughing so hard at the purile rant in that link.

I think one of the real problems god-botherers have, is that they can only view things from a god-centred point of view, and are forever worrying about their karma point totals. They just DON'T GET IT that an atheist doesn't care at all about such things. Play your heaven and hell routines, your fear of divine retribution amongst yourselves, and that's altogether fine. But I personally couldn't give tuppence about such nonsense.

Agreed Turbs, but at the individual level an awful lot of nasty people are using dusty old scrolls to justify outrageous acts against their neighbours.

If the plebs didn't block every single thing the elected government does, it would be OK.

and what did Dear Leader Kim Il Abbott spend his entire time in opposition doing, I wonder. Do ya think he was tagged Dr. No for the very reason you mention?????? ahhh I can hear the chickens coming home to roost already.

You know you want to. Bronny babe is a saucy minx. Hey you could call the Bishops B1 & B2...

One Abbott, 2 Bishops, 3/4 of the way to a real church.

Sorry KG and rgmwa, but Bexbetter (may he be praised) has already declared himself god of this forum.

Of course, there may be an opening for a Trinity, if you 3 put your heads together

I think some people are getting confused by the subtle difference in the use of the word "evolve". I didn't use it for this reason, even though it's commonly used for viruses.

Evolve: Unfold, unroll, open out, set forth in order, give off (heat), develop by natural process, invent, imagine

 

Evolution: Evolving, evolution of the species by development from earlier forms, extraction of root from any given power.

REALLY??? Semantics is the best form of argument you have ???? At least present a little bit of rational argument against Bikky's evidence (the evidence that you wanted).

What about the tuberculosis question I asked? Any response?

And yet - and yet

You have not given one cognizant argument that evolution does not happen - evolution can happen within a species without it becoming a brand new species, ya know. They can change the colour of feathers, lengths of beaks etc and yet, even though they have evolved from a base platform, they are still the same species . Now, at some time down the track, it may happen that interbreeding cannot happen due to further changes, and at that point, it can probably be defined as a new species, but evolution does not automatically create a new species each time there is a change.

I'm working on it.

Perhaps you can share with us this firm evidence.

Post #1334

http://www.bbc.com/news/health-30254697

- Antibiotic resistant tuberculosis

- Bacteria in general evolving resistance to antibiotics

- Flu virus that mutates EACH year!!!

Let me ask you this hypothetically.

You develop a bad cough - when you visit the doc, he diagnoses MDR (multi drug resistant) tuberculosis. Now, because evolution is a fraud, he gives you drugs that only work against the earlier variant of tuberculosis, before it evolved drug resistance. Do you protest about the treatment, or just keep saying, no evolution, so I'll take the drug that wont work against the MDR version?

You only have to look at the constant gene swapping that bacteria and virii do for evidence. It may not fit with your fairly narrow definition of evolution, but it happens all the time, and is happening today, and it is evolution.

Sounds like horse dung to me, since people who believed in God knew the moon and Jupiter were planets, knew about precession, and used henges to predict eclipses thousands of years before Galileo.

 

You're as bad as Octave with his virus - the HIV virus is still the HIV virus. It may well be adapting just as we adapt, it may even be changing, as some of us are black, some are white, some have round eyes, but it's not going to turn into a fish, lizard or bird.

Nah TP, you got the wrong end of the stick. Galileo's observations showed that the perfection of the heavens, Vs the corruptible earth, was nonsense. You are arguing geometry, he was arguing physical evidence Vs dogma.

Sunspots, and craters on the moon were not allowed under the perfection of the heavens dogma.

The phases of Venus, and the moons of Jupiter that he observed undermined the Aristotelian view of the heavens.

He didn't say there was no precession or no planets - dont use obtuse arguments.

As for your argument against virus evolution - evolution has been observed, in our limited human timeframe - no one expects a gorilla to appear from a virus - that also is a rather obtuse argument, and well beneath your usual level. Instead, can you deny the firm evidence of virii evolving???

There comes a point after which you either accept the evidence that is all around you, or you keep your face planted in the bible, denying things that are actually happening.

Did you know that when Galileo turned his telescope on the moon and Jupiter, that some religious of the time (but generally not the Jesuits in Rome) actually refused to look through the telescope to view the evidence of a non-perfect "creation"? The telescope showed things that conflicted with their religious beliefs, so rather than challenge their belief, they buried their eyes in their bible - Its called cognitive dissonance.

Now, god-botherers, have a bit of fun with an example of your own cognitive dissonance - i await your reply with bated breath

HIV evolving 'into milder form'

http://www.bbc.com/news/health-30254697

HIV is evolving to become less deadly and less infectious, according to a major scientific study.

The team at the University of Oxford shows the virus is being "watered down" as it adapts to our immune systems.

It said it was taking longer for HIV infection to cause Aids and that the changes in the virus may help efforts to contain the pandemic.

... snip...

"We are observing evolution happening in front of us and it is surprising how quickly the process is happening.

...snip...

(read article for more)

I didn't say "Most atheists hate", I said "Most atheist hate"....like most atheist pleasure, most atheist anger, most atheist belief etc

This sounds like our Dear Leader, Kim Il Abbott, explaining that a broken promise about cutting budgets is actually an efficiency dividend.

Again with the "hate". For example: To the Pastafarians out there;

 

- From which animal does the meat come from in the meatballs of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, and how could that animal exist before the FSM?

 

- Given that both spaghetti and meatballs are manufactured products, who manufactured the Flying Spaghetti Monster?

 

- Please explain the aerodynamics behind the FSM, as in popular illustrations it does not seem to possess wings, rotors or any method of propulsion.

Oh goodness Marty_d - i... just dont know how to overcome such...... unbeliveableness (if there is such a word)

See post #1230, and in the words of the great editor VI :

s/Bikky/Marty_d/g

Most athiests dont give a flying spaghetti monster about gods, nor the various early christian sects, and they certainly DONT give a toss about the bible, nor its so-called factual history - And on that point, dont confuse the fact of the existence of a clay tablet or scroll (which can be proved) with the stuff written on said scroll (which cant). Its a old trick, but well past it's use by date.

Oh it wasn't intended to be deliberately offensive, I just equate fundamental atheists as God haters because that's how they come across.