Don't tell me there's any proof for creationism.

real life wrote:

Only in your imagination.

blah, blah, blah . . .

then you'll see that there are relatively few 'other' folks reading these threads.

The point is not that there are relatively few, nor that there are relatively many, "other folks" reading these threads. The point is that there are any at all.

Quote:

We're mostly just talking to each other.

Yes, well, i can't help it that i talk to you as often as i do--it is certainly no fault of mine that you will persist in peddling your imaginary friend bullshit.

Quote:

If it makes you feel important to imagine that you have a large following online, then by all means, don't let the facts disabuse you of the notion.

In the first place, you have presented no facts, you have simply indulged speculation; you are offering surmise, not fact.

In the second place, i would wish to counter your bullshit even if it were no more than one other silent reader here, because i would want that silent reader to have the opportunity to see the arguments which are advanced against your poofism. You say that we are mostly just talking to each other. Be that as it may, that certainly constitutes an admission that there are others who are reading who are silent. In that circumstance, if i feel that if i am to spend any time here which does not involve the silliness with which i entertain myself (which includes reading the hilarious sorts of fantasy allegations you and your ilk so frequently present), and does not involve directly answering questions which are posted for which i have a good answer (mostly, but not limited to, history and language)--then i consider it time well spent to offer to the silent reader the rebuttal to your foolishness.

I have no large following online, nor do i imagine that i do. It were no egotistical gratification to imagine that there were such a following, since none of the "followers" would know me if they encountered me on the street. I am about as anonymous as one can be, barring only those members from this site, from Abuzz and a couple of other sites whom i have met in person. So you can make all the snide remarks suggesting illusions of grandeur on my part that you wish, they only tell us the extent to which you are a typical sneering, hateful christian.

The point is that if anyone else at all is reading here, i want them to read countervailing statements to the tripe you offer. And you don't fool me at all in the regard that this is precisely what you are attempting yourself. After all, aren't all you shepherds more joyful at the finding of a single lost lamb, than the one hundred who are already known to be entering into heaven?

Hypocrite.

0 Replies

ros-

You were asked-

Quote:

How do you define "scientific evidence" ros? It obviously will meet scientific empirical standards.

Why have you not answered?

0 Replies

So is this the summation of Real's argument?

If you can't prove what you had for dinner you can't prove evolution. Therefore Creationism is true because it's in the Bible.
God wrote the Bible (no proof needed here) and no proof is required for anything God wrote.
Anything that conflicts with the Bible is obviously wrong.
You can't prove anything that conflicts with the Bible (such as evolution).
We know that because you can't prove what you had for dinner.

0 Replies

That's roughly the Sunday School version (infants section).

0 Replies

spendius wrote:

That's roughly the Sunday School version (infants section).

It appears to be an accurate paraphrase of RL's position (I'm assuming he's not an infant, at least not physically).

0 Replies

spendius wrote:

That's roughly the Sunday School version (infants section).

I wanted to keep it simple spendius so you could understand it.

0 Replies

Aside: I believe the california Roll did come from California. Lot's of California foods have avacados in them and so does this roll. If it didn't come from california, I'm willing to bet that it ame from someone who was familiar with the popular garden and seafood cuisine of the area. I had a "California Omlet" on my roadtrip this summer when I was in San Ramone, it had avacado and crab meat, just like the California roll.

A simple sushi, and usually a nice sushi to have to encourage friends to try sushi. It's fairly cheep to in terms of sushi.

When I feel like endulging, I order the "Oh my God Roll." It literally comes out of the kitchen on fire. LOL. It's got yummy mackerel in it.

T
K
O

0 Replies

You're a deeply religious person TKO.

You get a spiritual buzz on the word "California" and think that the rolls made in an industrial unit just up the road from trucked in ingredients have some special cachet because their sales staff labelled them "California".

Cripes!!

0 Replies

Yeah... as silly as the adverts in the bobble... Made by god

0 Replies

spendius wrote:

You're a deeply religious person TKO.

You get a spiritual buzz on the word "California" and think that the rolls made in an industrial unit just up the road from trucked in ingredients have some special cachet because their sales staff labelled them "California".

Cripes!!

They don't serve sushi at the pub or the church.
K
O

0 Replies

It would make no difference if they did. I've never had sushi nor have I ever seen any. From what I read on Wiki there is no taste experience without the spices.

BTW TKO. Most writers I have read seem to think that "8 close friends" is pushing the boat out a bit. Most think that one is the most anybody can expect. How many average friends have you.

0 Replies

Sushi rolls or sashimi rolls are never "industrially made". Part of the expefrience for me is to watch the sushi chef making the rolls right in front of you. Some of the best Nori is actually farm raised in MAine and its a better quality than is available in Japan. The Japanese sushi market is becoming one of the best customers\

As far as relying "heavily on the condiments" , I suppose that the soy and wsabi do add to the flavor, but dont we put syrup on pancakes? or mustard on a hot dog?
Some suhis, like a yami yami roll I like served nekkid with o soy or wasabi. The flavors of the fish eggs and the toasted shrimp can be overpowered by wasabi and soy.

I cant imagine Mr Bean eating sushi.

0 Replies

Well he would look silly eating sushi when there's roast highlands beef with Yorkshire pudding and gravy and roast King Edwards with sprouts to get his laughing tackle round. Sushi sound like peasant fodder tarted up with a fancy name for the skint poseurs.

I asked around and nobody has ever tried it nor knows anybody else who has. So it's fair to assume that Mr Bean has passed it by.

Do they play Johnny Cash music where it's dished up?

0 Replies

Its a cultural thing spendi, you wouldnt understand Very Happy

0 Replies

What--sushi?

It figures.

0 Replies

Diest TKO wrote:

Last Tuesday I ate Japanes food

Good for you. I was hoping someone would attempt this.

We could discuss whether your proof meets a 'scientific' standard or not. And it may, although it might easier meet a legal standard of proof (proof beyond a reasonable doubt).

Now, can you prove 'scientifically' what you ate for dinner ten years ago Tuesday?

Do you see how it becomes more difficult as you go back in time?

0 Replies

TheCorrectResponse wrote:

the conservation law (real life) is touting didn't start to take effect until about 1x10EXP-35 seconds AFTER the big bang.

So you are very sure that the scientific laws that apply today DID NOT 'take effect' until AFTER the BB, eh?

To know this, you must know what the scientific laws were that DID apply then.

What were they?

What were the properties of the 'singularity' that produced the BB?

Where did it come from, of what was it composed and why did it BANG?

0 Replies

real life wrote:

TheCorrectResponse wrote:
the conservation law (real life) is touting didn't start to take effect until about 1x10EXP-35 seconds AFTER the big bang.

So you are very sure that the scientific laws that apply today DID NOT 'take effect' until AFTER the BB, eh?

To know this, you must know what the scientific laws were that DID apply then.

What were they?

What were the properties of the 'singularity' that produced the BB?

Where did it come from, of what was it composed and why did it BANG?

Once again, I will point out that this thread was created for you lunatic losers to provide some evidence of your beliefs. When are you going to do so you f@cking hypocrite? Stop avoiding the issue freak.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

Diest TKO wrote:
Last Tuesday I ate Japanes food

Good for you. I was hoping someone would attempt this.

We could discuss whether your proof meets a 'scientific' standard or not. And it may, although it might easier meet a legal standard of proof (proof beyond a reasonable doubt).

Now, can you prove 'scientifically' what you ate for dinner ten years ago Tuesday?

Do you see how it becomes more difficult as you go back in time?

I think the problem you have is making the distinguishment between proof and evidence.

Given the evidence listed and the evidence which could still exist (e.g. - evidence that I did not eat elsewhere), the evidence converges on my claim.

The evidence which is present to support the bible when introduced to other evidence (e.g. - fossil record, other religious documentation) does not converge on a the bible's claim.

You see, I don't need to disprove the bible anymore than I need to disprove any other mythology.

You can't disprove that last wednesday the Flying Spagetti monster didn't come to my home to explain that it wrote the bible to fool mankind.

To disprove this event you don't have to find proof that the event didn't take place, only that the event could never take place because the flying spagetti monster isn't real.

The same applies to the biblical world view. I don't need to waste time disproving events. I only need to illustrate that the magical element of the mythology does not exist.

The glorious part of this for me is that I don't have to actually do anything to disprove god. The universe does not default to any truth. The burden of proving god exists is for those who believe in god, not me. I only need to evaluate their evidence through a scientific lense.

T
K
O

0 Replies

Wilso wrote:

real life wrote:
TheCorrectResponse wrote:
the conservation law (real life) is touting didn't start to take effect until about 1x10EXP-35 seconds AFTER the big bang.

So you are very sure that the scientific laws that apply today DID NOT 'take effect' until AFTER the BB, eh?

To know this, you must know what the scientific laws were that DID apply then.

What were they?

What were the properties of the 'singularity' that produced the BB?

Where did it come from, of what was it composed and why did it BANG?

Once again, I will point out that this thread was created for you lunatic losers to provide some evidence of your beliefs. When are you going to do so you f@cking hypocrite? Stop avoiding the issue freak.

I asked the same question like 3 months ago, they said they had and directed me to a post which simply illustrated their disbelief in the BB.

There is no scientific evidence. Worse, there is no person willing to admit that.

T
K
O

0 Replies

Don't tell me there's any proof for creationism.

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know