Just to clarify....
The countdown timer is not perfect.
However, the recorded post times at the bottom left of every post are indeed correct.
Battle Talk ~ Battle Royale VII
- Thread starter Nathon Detroit
- Start date
- Status
The countdown timer is not perfect.
However, the recorded post times at the bottom left of every post are indeed correct.
Flipper
New member
Novice:
Frankly, I don't much care about a couple of hours here and there. I didn't care about BobE doing it (and he apologized quite nicely, if I recall correctly). I think that it's a bit petty to get bend out of shape, as this isn't speed chess.
Now if one of them missed it by 5 hours and there wasn't an excellent reason why, then the debate perhaps should be forfeit.
Do you think Zakath should be knocked out because of this?
Frankly, I don't much care about a couple of hours here and there. I didn't care about BobE doing it (and he apologized quite nicely, if I recall correctly). I think that it's a bit petty to get bend out of shape, as this isn't speed chess.
Now if one of them missed it by 5 hours and there wasn't an excellent reason why, then the debate perhaps should be forfeit.
Do you think Zakath should be knocked out because of this?
novice
Who is the stooge now?
Do you even take the time to read peoples posts before you respond????
Did you not read when I wrote... "Personally I think Zakath should be allowed an extra hour or two or possibly a day or two so he might be able to compose a post that actually addresses what Bob has posted without blatant mischaracterization but I digress!"
I don't really care about Zakath's late post time either!!!
My point is...
Since Zakath was an hour late with his post where are all those people that wanted Bob to make a public apology WHEN HE WAS 3 MINUTES LATE???
Re: Re: Use the right tools
Re: Re: Use the right tools
An example of this is Newtons Law of Gravity vs. Einstein's Theory of Relativity. Einstein's "theory" makes more accurate predictions than does Newton's "law", and in fact we use Einstein's equations whenever we need to be very accurate and precise (such as GPS tracking of space shuttles). Most likely, there will never be another "law" of science.
--ZK
Re: Re: Use the right tools
Michael: I think it is imperative that we realize that scienctific theories can NEVER be proven to be 100% certain. They can never be absolutely confirmed. Scientific theories are ALWAYS up for revision or replacement by other theories that more accuratly reflect the observable universe. There will likely never be another "law" in science. We have learned that we can never be certain, and are often wrong or incomplete in our understanding.
An example of this is Newtons Law of Gravity vs. Einstein's Theory of Relativity. Einstein's "theory" makes more accurate predictions than does Newton's "law", and in fact we use Einstein's equations whenever we need to be very accurate and precise (such as GPS tracking of space shuttles). Most likely, there will never be another "law" of science.
--ZK
Lost Sheep
New member
I'd like to comment on the debate on morality. Bob says that atheism undermines morality if Zakath can't admit that there is an absolute right or wrong. Bob may be able to prove that atheism undermines morality but it begs the question of where morality comes from? I think that it merely proves that morality comes from the BELIEF in God, not the EXISTENCE of God. If God exists, how do we what God wants? I don't think Zakath really asked or Bob answered this question. It should be asked. Bob has gotten Zakath on the defensive by exposing weaknesses in scientific explanations of things. I am surprised at how little the BIBLE has been mentioned. Why doesn't Zakath question Bob on the Bible?
I assume the answer to the question above is that we know what God wants by reading the Bible. If so, then the next question is how do we know that God's will is expressed in the Bible? Many, if not all, theists believe that the Bible is the inspired word of God. But before proving that you must first prove the existence of God. Even if God exists the Bible may still have been written merely by men without any divine guidance according what they personally, or their society at the time, believed was right. Throughout history men have acted on what they thought was morally right according to God, e.g. slavery, the crusades, other religious wars, witch hunts, and other repression, persecution and violence against people who are different. It all depends on what is considered moral by society.
I would definitely ask Bob if the Bible is the inerrant word of God.
If it is, then how can he use scientific theories such as the Big Bang to prove God? Doesn't the Bible say that the Earth and light came first day, then day and night, then the third day came the plants, THEN not until the fourth day the sun moon, and stars? I'd like to know what Bob would say about that.
I assume the answer to the question above is that we know what God wants by reading the Bible. If so, then the next question is how do we know that God's will is expressed in the Bible? Many, if not all, theists believe that the Bible is the inspired word of God. But before proving that you must first prove the existence of God. Even if God exists the Bible may still have been written merely by men without any divine guidance according what they personally, or their society at the time, believed was right. Throughout history men have acted on what they thought was morally right according to God, e.g. slavery, the crusades, other religious wars, witch hunts, and other repression, persecution and violence against people who are different. It all depends on what is considered moral by society.
I would definitely ask Bob if the Bible is the inerrant word of God.
If it is, then how can he use scientific theories such as the Big Bang to prove God? Doesn't the Bible say that the Earth and light came first day, then day and night, then the third day came the plants, THEN not until the fourth day the sun moon, and stars? I'd like to know what Bob would say about that.
Scrimshaw
New member
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Was Hitler an atheist?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Was Hitler an atheist?
Wrong. Evolution states that both apes and humans descended from a COMMON ANCESTOR. I find it comically that a self-professed evolutionist, such as yourself, wouldn't have an accurate knowedge of what Evolution teaches.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Was Hitler an atheist?
Wrong. Evolution states that both apes and humans descended from a COMMON ANCESTOR. I find it comically that a self-professed evolutionist, such as yourself, wouldn't have an accurate knowedge of what Evolution teaches.
Scrimshaw
New member
What moronic rhetoric. There is no evidence for the existence of any of those entities, (except Big Foot perhaps), but there is a plethora of evidence supporting the existence of God. To put them in the same category is the epitome of idiocy. Bob has been detailing such evidence in the debate. Evidence that Zakath continues to ignore, and fails to explain.
Scrimshaw
New member
Yeah, I agree. It's so crazy to see so many naturalists believing in magical processes that have never been observed. You know, those unobserved natural processes that can magically cause entire complex universes to pop into existence uncaused out of nothing, and those pixie-like processes that supposedly create amazingly complex lifeforms to magically evolve out of non-living chemicals. Yes, it is quite funny to see so many naturalists believing in the craziest things without even an iota of evidence. I can accept the idea of children believing a magician can make rabbits magically pop out of hats, but it is quite asinine for adults to believe that entire complex universes can pop out of NOTHING.....even without the benefit of a magician! :shut:
Last edited:
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Was Hitler an atheist?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Was Hitler an atheist?
I know that. I was not meaning to be exact. But even so, the ancestor was an ape too, although not a species that still exist.
I am not an evolutionist in the sense that it is neither my profession or commitment or hobby to know about what the evolution theory states or not states. I don't have much knowledge about it, that is I just know the most common basics.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Was Hitler an atheist?
I know that. I was not meaning to be exact. But even so, the ancestor was an ape too, although not a species that still exist.
I am not an evolutionist in the sense that it is neither my profession or commitment or hobby to know about what the evolution theory states or not states. I don't have much knowledge about it, that is I just know the most common basics.
D the Atheist
New member
Does God Exist?
Does God Exist?
Hi, (I’m a newbie)
Bob Enyart is using the old religious trick of there not being enough time for chemical interacting to take place for the formulation of life. I say trick advisedly.
It is all about chance and coincidence.
We have a sandy beach near us approximately 50 miles long. If I went to the beach and ran an extremely thin line of red paint (One sand grain wide) that altered detectably in colour after each grain, for those fifty miles, I would know which grain was next to which if they were separated. (Theoretically)
If I jumped into my time machine and went back a year or a million years and found all those grains of sand (The colours have also gone back in time) and I said that at a future date they would end up next to each other in colour gradient order, the Bob Elyarts would say that that was impossible because there is not enough time, especially in one year and not even in a million an he would add, in a billion billion.
Bob would be right of course, but, even so, the sand did end up in that order.
Does God Exist?
Hi, (I’m a newbie)
Bob Enyart is using the old religious trick of there not being enough time for chemical interacting to take place for the formulation of life. I say trick advisedly.
It is all about chance and coincidence.
We have a sandy beach near us approximately 50 miles long. If I went to the beach and ran an extremely thin line of red paint (One sand grain wide) that altered detectably in colour after each grain, for those fifty miles, I would know which grain was next to which if they were separated. (Theoretically)
If I jumped into my time machine and went back a year or a million years and found all those grains of sand (The colours have also gone back in time) and I said that at a future date they would end up next to each other in colour gradient order, the Bob Elyarts would say that that was impossible because there is not enough time, especially in one year and not even in a million an he would add, in a billion billion.
Bob would be right of course, but, even so, the sand did end up in that order.
D the Atheist
New member
Hi Joe TheBaptist,
Thank you for the welcome, but can I pick you up on the misuse of a word in your post.
I am not an unbeliever!
As an Atheist I accept that there is no credible scientific or factually reliable evidence for the existence of a god, gods or the supernatural.
I therefore have nothing to unbelieve in.
Thank you for the welcome, but can I pick you up on the misuse of a word in your post.
I am not an unbeliever!
As an Atheist I accept that there is no credible scientific or factually reliable evidence for the existence of a god, gods or the supernatural.
I therefore have nothing to unbelieve in.
Scrimshaw writes,
Yeah those damn naturalists.. just because EVERYTHING that has ever happened has shown to have natural origins they go and assume future discoveries will show natural origins.. err hang on isn’t that LOGICAL ?
Nice if we could observe them.. wait for your time machine for your verification.. a long wait I would assume. And what about your God that popped out out unobserved and uncaused.. etc etc !
Which can be repeated in labs. Man has already created a virus from chemicals.
And either these forms evolved over time or your God kept redoing creation (how many mistakes did he make?)
No naturalists (I would say materialists or atheists) extrapolate from the KNOWN fact that everything known had a natural origin that everything unknown will be shown to have a natural origin to.
As opposed to a God popping out of nothing then making everything else without any shred of evidence for supernatural processes.
You need to just cut out you illogical additional step.
Yeah those damn naturalists.. just because EVERYTHING that has ever happened has shown to have natural origins they go and assume future discoveries will show natural origins.. err hang on isn’t that LOGICAL ?
Nice if we could observe them.. wait for your time machine for your verification.. a long wait I would assume. And what about your God that popped out out unobserved and uncaused.. etc etc !
Which can be repeated in labs. Man has already created a virus from chemicals.
And either these forms evolved over time or your God kept redoing creation (how many mistakes did he make?)
No naturalists (I would say materialists or atheists) extrapolate from the KNOWN fact that everything known had a natural origin that everything unknown will be shown to have a natural origin to.
As opposed to a God popping out of nothing then making everything else without any shred of evidence for supernatural processes.
You need to just cut out you illogical additional step.
tuxpower
New member
Here's a thought and a way for any of the evolutionists here to earn a quick $250,000.00. Just offer empirical evidence (scientific proof) to Kent Hovind that macro evolution is true.
Here's the instructions on how to collect your cash: (See his website for details on option #3, etc. http://www.drdino.com/cse.asp?pg=250k
Prove beyond reasonable doubt that the process of evolution (option 3 above, under "known options") is the only possible way the observed phenomena could have come into existence. Only empirical evidence is acceptable. Persons wishing to collect the $250,000 may submit their evidence in writing or schedule time for a public presentation. A committee of trained scientists will provide peer review of the evidence offered and, to the best of their ability, will be fair and honest in their evaluation and judgment as to the validity of the evidence presented.
If you are convinced that evolution is an indisputable fact, may I suggest that you offer $250,000 for any empirical or historical evidence against the general theory of evolution. This might include the following:
1. The earth is not billions of years old (thus destroying the possibility of evolution having happened as it is being taught).
2. No animal has ever been observed changing into any fundamentally different kind of animal.
3. No one has ever observed life spontaneously arising from nonliving matter.
4. Matter cannot make itself out of nothing.
With all the proof you seem to have, it should be easy money!
Here's the instructions on how to collect your cash: (See his website for details on option #3, etc. http://www.drdino.com/cse.asp?pg=250k
Prove beyond reasonable doubt that the process of evolution (option 3 above, under "known options") is the only possible way the observed phenomena could have come into existence. Only empirical evidence is acceptable. Persons wishing to collect the $250,000 may submit their evidence in writing or schedule time for a public presentation. A committee of trained scientists will provide peer review of the evidence offered and, to the best of their ability, will be fair and honest in their evaluation and judgment as to the validity of the evidence presented.
If you are convinced that evolution is an indisputable fact, may I suggest that you offer $250,000 for any empirical or historical evidence against the general theory of evolution. This might include the following:
1. The earth is not billions of years old (thus destroying the possibility of evolution having happened as it is being taught).
2. No animal has ever been observed changing into any fundamentally different kind of animal.
3. No one has ever observed life spontaneously arising from nonliving matter.
4. Matter cannot make itself out of nothing.
With all the proof you seem to have, it should be easy money!
D the Atheist
New member
If the html gods don't exist either, can someone help me re my signature.
Thanks
:help:
Thanks
:help:
- Status