Donny, freakshow, i have a question
 

The bible is claims a lot of things. Really a shitload of things.
Can you show some evidence for...uhm...how about 3 claims...extraordinary claims ofcourse.

Hold on, let me remove you from my christian freakshow ignore list.

I can give good evidence that one verse obviously doesn't apply to all humans:

That whole making man in His image thing, meaning - amongst other things - of reasonable intelligence, doesn't seem to apply to guys with really big foreheads. Maybe you're just the exception, and not the rule, because I don't know anyone else with the same condition with which to compare ya.

Having a good 2013?

Wut wut?? That's it? Really? I un-ignored you for this?
What be the problem, freakshow? You, out of all people, you must be able to back up some extraordinary claims with extraordinary evidence, right?

I doubt you have the intelligence to understand certain principles of physics, which is where the conversation would head, so why bother? I do discuss such things elsewhere on the 'net, where the audience can meaningfully converse on such topics. I don't mind entertaining trolls to some extent, but this particular topic fascinates me, and I save such discussions for those with something to lend to the conversation. You have no intentions whatsoever of actually engaging in meaningful discussion on this, so why bother?

Such a disappointment. Our own porn Jebus...instead of showing some evidence for the amazing biblical stories (that's why he is here right) he prefers to hostile...
That's not very christian of you, freakshow.

You sound like an evil atheist.

Evidence Donny boy, evidence.
Show me some.
BTW, referring to the bible for evidence isn't evidence.

Dirty F have you not seen the "I lost a good model to JW" thread? It is at the top now

No i didn't till i read your post.
I then went to the mainpage and saw the thread, clicked it and the first thing i read was this:
Religion really fucks up people's lives. I should know, I'm a Pastor's son.

I stopped reading there, to come back to this thread and paste it.

I'm totally confused.
I always thought Donald was a spastic (no offense to spastics, seriously) and now it turns out he actually was capable of being sane?
The fuck?

Did he get into accident at some point? Where someone kicked him in the head for 3 minutes?

You ask for clear concise logic from a religious nutjob and then are shocked when he can't respond?

Surely you troll.

Yeah I know, don't call you Shirley :)

Bible stories are a teachers handbook from the times when the general population was thick as shit and only a handful of people could read.

Bigfooters also use this "logic".
And most conspiracy nutters.

If I thought you were up for serious intellectual conversation I'd be all over this. But you and I both know you're trolling. You can always try google, Franck.

if anyone ever found any proof for god i think we'd know by now

so unless he shows up and says hi i think we can safely assume religion is nonsense

but it keeps stupid people under control, for that we should be thankful

i wuz here 2013

weak and predictable. Fuck man I'm a prophet :1orglaugh

Claiming...not claims...
I sound like a Canadian.

There is just as much proof for God as there is for some scientific theories. A real discussion on this would begin with a discussion on complexity. The last time I posted a statement to begin a discussion on complexity it was completely ignored.

you do know a lot of it is allegories and parables, and wrongly translated words?

Not to mention that stories like creation in Genesis goes much deeper than anyone teaches in the church which would be considered a heresy

Here it is again...

SOME STATS FOR MY ATHEIST FRIENDS:

In one of his books, Richard Dawkins uses the Infinite Monkey Theorem as an example when writing about how elements can eventually be arranged at random, supposedly resulting in life. The Theorem states this, basically:

If you put a group of monkeys in a room in front of typewriters, given enough time (if they could live forever) they would end up typing out the complete works of Shakespeare.

This is a perfect example of how biologists, even intelligent ones the likes of Richard Dawkins, don't comprehend probability and complexity. Mathematics shows this Theorem is a very BAD example of what Dawkins was trying to prove. The facts are that to produce just one SONNET (never mind all of Shakespeare's works), would require more time in total years than there are particles in the universe.

Again, RICHARD DAWKINS uses the Infinite Monkey Theorem as an example, so don't give me grief for mentioning it.

Here's how the math breaks down for just one SONNET:

All sonnets are 14 lines long. Let's take the sonnet that begins with "Shall I compare thee to a summer's day?" There are 488 letters in that sonnet. What is the likelihood of a monkey pounding away on a keyboard and getting all 488 letters in sequence? There are 26 letters of the alphabet, right? The odds would therefore be 26 to the 488th power... which in scientific notation (base 10) is 10 to the 690th power.

Now for comparison on how HUGE that number is:
The number of particles in the entire universe - not grains of sand, I'm talking protons, electrons and neutrons - is 10 to the 80th power. 10 to the 690th is larger than all the particles in the entire universe. There are not enough particles in the entire universe to write down all the trials these monkeys would have to go through in order to finally type out a single sonnet.

If you took the entire universe and converted it to computer chips - forget the monkeys - each one weighing a millionth of a gram and had each computer chip able to spin out 488 trials at, say, a millions times a second; if you turn the entire universe into these microcomputer chips and these chips were spinning a million times a second, producing random letters, the number of trials you would get since the beginning of TIME would be 10 to the 90th trials. That's off by a factor of 10 to the 600th of what you'd need to put out ONE SONNET by chance.

In other words, you will NEVER get a sonnet by random chance. Richard Dawkins didn't comprehend this, although I'm sure someone has set him straight since the book that used that example was published, as he no longer uses that example.

Life is far, far more complex than a Shakespearean sonnet. Life would need far, far more time to arise at random than would a single Shakespearean sonnet. Study the complexity of just a cell, never mind a sentient life form. Without intelligent guidance, again, we simply would not be here. There hasn't been enough time.

And consider this: life never arises from non-life. Never, ever.

when "just as much" means that there is no proof for god as there is no proof that the big bang really started with the size of a grain of sand then yes - both are theories.

but there is a lot of proof for what happened after the big bang - but i still fail to see one positive proof for an almighty god.

just one proof - and not the face of jesus on a toast, that doesnt count

so the proof is: because a monkey doesnt write like Shakespeare there must be a god?

lol

bit of a childish way to look at it

The Big Bang and the beginning of Genesis 1 describe the exact same thing. Probability and complexity, the discussion I just attempted to start again with my last post, starts going down the path towards the proof you ask about.

in a way :Oh crap

Simplistic, non-intellectual responses like this are exactly why I earlier stated that starting this discussion would be a waste of time.

sorry, that monkey theorem is not a proof

Definitely not. But it does help illustrate the fact that the universe is not old enough for us to be here without the assistance of intelligent design. The complexity of a single cell is FAR greater than a Shakespearean sonnet, which makes the probability for such to have arisen without intelligent assistance far greater than the numbers previously described.

donny?

why are you posting here? your threads and posts are contributing to the traffic and therefore revenues of gfy which is owned porn company.

Surely this is a sin no?

Where'd you go, Franck? Told ya this isn't a discussion you're capable of having.

thats what that guy says, the documentary i saw yesterday about the big bang said something different.

just because we havent figured everything out yet, it doesnt automatically mean that there was some divine intervention

MaDalton, what I posted isn't in dispute. Neither is another fact: we cannot find proof of life arising from non-life ANYWHERE. We can't make it happen and we haven't found evidence it ever has.

Also, I don't think you're grasping how HUGE the numbers are in the example I posted. It's not like our universe would need just a little more time for us to be here.. We would need so much more than 14 billion years that we can't even grasp it. If you counted every single proton, neutron and electron in the entire universe you would have to multiply that number by itself more than 600 times. And turn that answer into years. And that still wouldn't be enough time.

Not enough time? There have been changes in so many things in just the last 100 years.

Please tell me this post is your idea of a joke. We aren't discussing evolution right now, which I happen to accept, by the way. We are talking about the formation of building blocks for life and the development thereof.

People who want to disprove there is a God are just as pathetic as those pushing God down everyone's throat. I dont particularly believe in a God but I am not going to discount those that do.

I think It's safe to say that Maria was a lesbo and that Josef raped her without telling god. Now we all have to pay for that sin by listening to all this bible nonsense :Oh crap

:thumbsup:2 cents:

The difference is that scientists have a full time jobs trying to prove theories wrong.

LOLOLOL ......... i love when Creationists who for hundreds of years have UNEQUIVOCALLY agreed that the Earth is 6000 years old flail around helplessly babbling about INTELLIGENT DESIGN when faced with the irrefutable evidence the Earth is 4.5 BILLION YEARS OLD. At one point they would try desperately to make the Bible fit in with what science has proven and claim that years in the Bible were lunar months, getting them to somewhere around 50,000 years - yeah, that's realllllllllllllly going to help your cause, 4.5 BILLION versus 50,000. Fail. So they latched on to this vague hypothesis called INTELLIGENT DESIGN, a cop out, which says the universe and everything in it is so incredible that of course the only conclusion one can make is that a grand all knowing sky wizard, God, made it all.

Donny you're a CHRISTIAN, you BELIEVE in the BIBLE, the Jewish Bible and the New Testament. Defend the BIBLE and all that's written in it, it's the basis of EVERYTHING you believe, it is historical fact to you. Dawkins laughs at the Bible. When Dawkins allows that God may exist, he's not talking about your God, or any other God of any religion man has created.

Your arguments are borrowed and specious. Science hasn't yet proven there is no God, it may never prove it BUT what it has proven is that your God, your religion is fantasy, a fairy tale.

Oh dear - I think Donny might be one of Johnnyclips other nicks/personalities.

Is Donny the Bipolar alter ego ?

Or perhaps its the other way around. Johnny is really Donny ?

Anyway it must be a lizard overlord CIA conspiracy that removes Johnny and replaces him with Donny.

Surely you sheeple can she through this basic false flag 101.

:thumbsup

i was here too ..

Donny really doesn't believe all that shit. He's said it here a million times before.

He's just putting on show. Doesn't matter what he says, it's all just a big show.

Pick the top 10 worst conspiracy nuts on this forum and you'll notice the logic and line of reasoning is the same. A lot of overt statements or pre-suppositions or claims as the high intelligence of the believer and low intelligence of the non-believer, they're educated, you're not, they educate themselves, you don't... they have an open mind, you don't... they're informed, you're not...they favor intelligent discussion and consequently, your questioning of their beliefs is then framed as "unintelligent", eventually, it degrades and a retreat is made to the final intellectual refuge of "you're just sheep/brainwashed/programmed" etc. and so on and so forth.

All beliefs rely on faith. Science, more often than not, relies on faith. The primary difference between religion and science is that science ultimately seeks the truth vs the staunch and unwavering defense archaic and ancient superstitious beliefs.

As for Donny.. he's a nut. But he was a nut before he found Jesus. Like any junkie or criminal that becomes religious, or health freak or whatever, the "crazy" driving the behaviors never goes away. All that changes is how that "crazy" is expressed. The nutty drug addict that finds jesus, becomes an addict for religion simply supplanting one excessive and unreasonable behavior for another.

Where have I used any of these arguments, Mutt? This post of yours is the very definition of an argument against a straw man: since you don't have a good argument about the things I have ACTUALLY written, you instead project arguments you've heard elsewhere that are similar to this situation. That doesn't work, though, Mutt. That's very anti-intellectual. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that it's possible you just skimmed what I wrote and are responding to something you THOUGHT I believed based on past interactions with Christians.

Since you brought it up: many Christians do NOT believe the earth is 6,000 years old, or even 50,000 years old. Many Christians, such as me, have no problem with the theory of evolution or a 14 billion year old earth. Creation and evolution do not conflict. I'm a very firm believer in Theistic Evolution, which holds that God created all that exists over a very long period of time. The Bible itself doesn't conflict with this. The original language of Genesis allows for it, and even the Pope of the Catholic Church says the same.

If you'd like to be involved in this discussion, I invite you to go back and read what I've ACTUALLY said, and then respond with arguments that apply. Your above post simply does not.