0
   

Why panspermia is false; true origin of mankind

Forums: Religion, Evolution, Aliens, Biology, Astronomy
Email this Topic • Print this Page
 
 
bewildered
 
  0  
Reply Thu 31 Mar, 2011 10:02 pm
@farmerman,
Liar. The end is near for die hard rock guys like you who cannot see fossils in meteorites. No one can debunk Hoover's article. I have read most of the 24 commentaries on the Hoover article, by real experts who have searched for microfossils in meteorites, not crackposts like you or in the media. If you don't have time, just read Commentary No. 12 at http://journalofcosmology.com/Life101.html#11
Show hard proof. Stop babelling.
bewildered
 
  0  
Reply Thu 31 Mar, 2011 10:06 pm
@Joe Nation,
Is this what you wanted--Final Way?
http://groups.google.com/groups/profile?hl=zh-TW&myprofile
0 Replies
 
bewildered
 
  0  
Reply Thu 31 Mar, 2011 10:12 pm
@farmerman,
Liar.
0 Replies
 
bewildered
 
  0  
Reply Thu 31 Mar, 2011 10:27 pm
@joefromchicago,
You just don't know. All Martians returned to Heaven before God led mankind to another planet in another solar system. After that, all mankind returned to Heaven before God led mankind to Earth about 360 million years ago. There is no such thing as interplanetary or intersolar moving of mankind. All men and women came from Heaven and must return to Heaven after life. About 10 percent of mankind went back directly to Heaven after life. The other 90 percent, like Farmerman, must go to hell after life, stay in hell for hundreds or thousands of years and then return to Heaven. All life came from Heaven and must return to Heaven sooner or later. No travel between solar systems. Got it?
By the way, most humans return to Heaven during sleep most nights. You just don't know. You are unable to be aware of this fact no matter how you try or how I explain it.
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Thu 31 Mar, 2011 10:59 pm
@bewildered,
bewildered wrote:
You just don't know.

True. That's why I asked.

bewildered wrote:
All Martians returned to Heaven before God led mankind to another planet in another solar system. After that, all mankind returned to Heaven before God led mankind to Earth about 360 million years ago.

How do people return to heaven?

bewildered wrote:
There is no such thing as interplanetary or intersolar moving of mankind.

No, that can't be true. You said: "Earthly humans visited Moon and Mars 200 million years ago at the latest." So earth humans visited Mars after they had left Mars and had settled on the earth. How did they visit Mars if they didn't engage in interplanetary travel?

bewildered wrote:
By the way, most humans return to Heaven during sleep most nights. You just don't know. You are unable to be aware of this fact no matter how you try or how I explain it.

So how are you aware of it?
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 Apr, 2011 04:56 am
@bewildered,
Why don't you learn how to spell the ******* word babble, jackass. You're a loon.
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 Apr, 2011 04:57 am
@joefromchicago,
And you told me i have no standards about those to whom i replied . . .
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 Apr, 2011 05:56 am
@bewildered,
By the way, Ive read your "Cosmology" entry. Its aconflation of the noirmal peer reviewed stuff an=d some self published **** , an advert for Hoovers Book, and bullshit that youve included about a "fossil leg bone". EVEN if it we were to buy what Hoover said. HEs claiming that CYANOBACTER are seen in some meteorites, not red blood cells separate from any corpus.
The cyanobacter argument is a long lived one where a greter number of reputable scientists ( exo geologists included) dont see the evidence for cyanobacter. Instead, they have done thin section analyses of the "specimens" and claim that these are carbonotites (weve been through this before).

I think the evidence for cyanobacter stands on its own. What youve done is attempt to "guild the lily" by making extraordinary claims that were not part of anyones data. Thats called fraud in science. NOW QUIT IT.
0 Replies
 
bewildered
 
  0  
Reply Fri 1 Apr, 2011 07:01 am
@joefromchicago,
"There is no such thing as interplanetary or intersolar moving of mankind"
That means massive moving of mankind.
"Earthly humans visited Moon and Mars 200 million years ago at the latest."
That means a few explorers visited Moon and Mars, not moving of mankind in a massive way
bewildered
 
  0  
Reply Fri 1 Apr, 2011 07:03 am
@Setanta,
Not babble. Most scientists talk in the "Tower of Babel".
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 Apr, 2011 07:06 am
@bewildered,
Yeah, i figured you had some delusive religious **** goin' on. That does not alter the fact that "babel" is not a common noun in English. You not only butcher science, you butcher language, too. Don't try to feed me that bullshit that you're not religiously motivated, either. You may not subscribe to any currently organized religion, but that doesn't mean your crackpot ideas are not derived from the warping of some loony religious doctrine which was the pap of your childhood.
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  2  
Reply Fri 1 Apr, 2011 08:06 am
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:

And you told me i have no standards about those to whom i replied . . .

I look forward to the thread in which you complain about that.
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 Apr, 2011 08:09 am
@bewildered,
bewildered wrote:
"There is no such thing as interplanetary or intersolar moving of mankind"
That means massive moving of mankind.

Evidently we have vastly different definitions of "interplanetary travel."

bewildered wrote:
"Earthly humans visited Moon and Mars 200 million years ago at the latest."
That means a few explorers visited Moon and Mars, not moving of mankind in a massive way

How did they do that? And how do you know they did that?

bewildered wrote:
By the way, most humans return to Heaven during sleep most nights. You just don't know. You are unable to be aware of this fact no matter how you try or how I explain it.

So how are you aware of it?
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 Apr, 2011 08:10 am
@joefromchicago,
Well, that response makes no sense to me, unless you meant to use a different tense of the verb. Nevertheless, it seems to me that your own standards are no sufficiently high to complain of anyone else.
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 Apr, 2011 08:16 am
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:

Well, that response makes no sense to me, unless you meant to use a different tense of the verb. Nevertheless, it seems to me that your own standards are no sufficiently high to complain of anyone else.

I love it when somebody complains about somebody else's grammar or spelling but ends up making the same kinds of mistakes himself.
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 Apr, 2011 08:18 am
@joefromchicago,
I didn't complain about your grammar or spelling (and that kind of straw man is typical of you), i just noted that the response didn't make sense to me unless you had meant to use another tense of the verb. I take it you did. So, once again, it seems to me that your own standards are not sufficiently high to complain of anyone else.
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 Apr, 2011 08:26 am
@Setanta,
The day I take writing advice from you will be the day before I give up writing entirely.
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 Apr, 2011 08:32 am
@joefromchicago,
That would certainly not be a day which i would regret. Nevertheless, neither had i offered you advice on writing--so there's another straw man. I was just tying to understand what you had written. Not that it means much, obviously.
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 Apr, 2011 09:06 am
@Setanta,
I can never maintain any position of criticism about most anyones writing . I do admit, however, to complaining about spendis prose. He just goes on and on with run ons and unlinked phrases. I think Im on safe ground with that critique. Howevere , for me, writing is like Do-it-Yourself dentistry. Painful and difficult.
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 Apr, 2011 12:28 pm
@farmerman,
Actually, it's because i entertain a high opinion of the quality of Joe's writing that i didn't understand his response--it didn't occur to me that he had written anything other than what he intended. However, it seems that as in the thread from which this continues, he just wants to snipe. But i'm happy to oblige with that, too.

Your writing, on the other hand, or rather your typing, is an adventure in deciphering akin to ENIGMA.
 

Related Topics

What if no religions are correct, but there still is a God? - Question by neologist
We are all like little children who often say: "Mom, Dad, leave me alone, I want to be on my own". - Question by Leaffan
How can we be sure that all religions are wrong? - Discussion by reasoning logic
Beyond tribalism; How well does your religious label serve you? - Discussion by MattDavis
Is religion responsible for the opposition to peace in the Israel-Palestine conflict? - Question by maxdancona
Concern for Religious Freedom or Preaching Political Messages? - Discussion by wandeljw
Why People Seek Solace In Gods. - Question by mark noble
Catholic remarried couples should abstain from sex - Question by Tes yeux noirs
How can a good God allow suffering - Question by SawyerMentink
Religion and Fear - Discussion by TomTomBinks
A question for athiests - Question by onevoice
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Why panspermia is false; true origin of mankind
  3. » Page 2
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 02/05/2025 at 01:00:20
▲ ▼