XPost: alt.atheism, talk.atheism
On Fri, 5 Jun 2015 22:01:46 +0000 (UTC), Smil stupidly wrote:
.
>On Fri, 05 Jun 2015 16:23:33 -0400, mur wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 30 May 2015 20:55:29 +0000 (UTC), Smil wrote:
>>.
>>>On Fri, 29 May 2015 20:45:41 -0400, mur wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Fri, 22 May 2015 19:30:22 +0000 (UTC), Smil wrote:
>>>>.
>>>>>On Fri, 22 May 2015 12:04:27 -0400, mur wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Sat, 9 May 2015 21:56:26 +0000 (UTC), Smil wrote:
>>>>>> .
>>>>>>>On Fri, 08 May 2015 22:02:27 -0400, mur wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Thu, 30 Apr 2015 08:39:01 -0400, raven1
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>> .
>>>>>>>>>On Wed, 29 Apr 2015 23:18:42 -0400, "Chris F.A. Johnson"
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>On 2015-04-30, mur wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>...
>>>>>>>>>>> The fact that there are no examples of reptiles in transition
>>>>>>>>>>> stages to
>>>>>>>>>>> birds, or mammals in transition stages to flying mammals, etc,
>>>>>>>>>>> alive today is evidence that something (like God) had deliberate
>>>>>>>>>>> influence on evolution.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> If there are no examples, it is evidence that they either haven't
>>>>>>>>>> been found yet or that there aren't any. It says nothing
>>>>>>>>>> whatsoever about the existence of something like God or anything
>>>>>>>>>> else.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>We do have transitional fossils of reptile-to-bird evolution,
>>>>>>>>>Archaeopteryx being the most celebrated. But whether we did or not,
>>>>>>>>>you are correct that this is irrelevant to the existence of a deity,
>>>>>>>>>and it's involvement or not in the process.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> That's your guess, and you obviously have great faith in your
>>>>>>>> guess being
>>>>>>>> correct, but so far you've given no reason why everyone else should
>>>>>>>> put their faith in it being correct. How about if you give everybody
>>>>>>>> reason to now?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>No faith is needed when there is scientific evidence,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Of what?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>of which there is plenty.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Why didn't you present it then?
>>>>>
>>>>>Why should I bother?
>>>>
>>>> Why "should" you? LOL....HILARIOUS!
>>>>
>>>>>Your closed mind and religious blinders would prevent
>>>>>you from even seeing it, let alone understanding it.
>>>>
>>>> You tried to find something to support your claim but couldn't find
>>>>anything. Maybe at some point in the future you will, or maybe you never
will be
>>>>able to, but you're infantile wussings have made it clear that you couldn't
>>>>support your claims the last time I challenged you to try.
>>>
>>>Snipped . . . Why should I . . .
>>
>> To provide some evidence that you have any idea at all what you think
you're
>>trying to talk about. So far you've given the clear appearance that you don't
>>have any idea and can't even pretend you do.
>
>Your mental masturbation is yours and yours alone.
YOU consistently give the very clear appearance that you have no idea at
all
what you think you're trying to talk about. The only thing that has to do with
me is that I keep pointing it out for you, and sometimes challenge you to try
to
pretend you do have some clue.
>>>Would it change your mind? Would anything change your mind?
>>
>> Your cowardly attempts to wuss away from yourself certainly don't. If you
>>could do better it might, depending on what you could come up with. I do
>>consider the possibility that there's no God associated with this planet, but
>>since I don't have faith in that being the correct one I consider other
>>possibilities as well.
>
>Thanks for admitting that NOTHING would change your closed mind.
LOL!!! If you're honestly stupid enough to believe I told you that, maybe
you honestly are as stupid as you appear to be. I consider what little you're
able to but don't put faith in it being correct as you do, so I consider what
little you're able to and more.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
