Most atheists dont know about science (Page 602)

zeffur: How can the cosmos logically create itself, oh purveyor of imaginary & irrational ideas that you pretend are truths?

harpalycus47: No one said that the cosmos did, only you.

ghostgeek: Genesis 14“Cursed are you above all livestock
and all wild animals!
You will crawl on your belly
and you will eat dust
all the days of your life.
15
And I will put enmity
between you and the woman,
and between your offspring and hers;
he will crush your head,
and you will strike his heel.”

Seems the talking snake did have offspring: " and between your offspring and hers;"

harpalycus47: And you were specifically talking about the formation of life - abiogenesis, oh supreme avoider of questions and creator of dumb arguments.

harpalycus47: Which you are still avoiding.

harpalycus47: But I'm not avoiding the call of my bed. Later, Zeffur. Later.

ghostgeek: Mmm, yes, it is getting a little late.

zeffur: re: "between your offspring and hers"

Opps. I forgot about that one. Not that it matters, though. We know no modern snakes talk, so how do you explain that? Devolution?

TheloniousSphereMonk: lol...and poor ole Zeff provides another example of how he's clueless about evolution and how it works.

TheloniousSphereMonk: Hey Zeff, remember the time you asked why evolution hasn't produced a flying monkey with echo-location??...lol

TheloniousSphereMonk: I should start keeping a list of these questions.

zeffur: Of course not--because I never asked that question. That is just another example of you lying. Not that there is anything wrong with such a 'bio-evolution' question--given that your bio-evo cult beliefs are nothing but worthless fictional nonsense for gullible fools, like yourself.

Why couldn't flying monkeys develop wings?? Or talk? Or even evolve echolocation? Bats, whales, dolphins, & a few birds (nocturnal oilbird, some swiftlets), & some shrews (tenrec of Madagascar) purportedly have it. There is even a blind human who uses echolocation to navigate. What is the magic random factor/s that causes/prevents it from magically occurring or not in a life form?? Why aren't there small flying monkeys that can fly like bats? Fruit bats & monkeys compete for fruit, right? What prevented monkeys from making caves their homes? What is stopping nature from spawning a tiny monkey that can fly? Bats are mammals too, you know (assumes you have a clue that they are classified as mammals--which you probably don't).

You can assume all of those are rhetorical questions, because we all know that you are way too stupid to have a true answer to any of them. You don't know jack & you never will know anything that is worth knowing, obviously.

GeraldTheGnumbnut: Bobbie's in the bedroom waiting for you naked zeffy

zeffur: zeffur lies about nothing. Prove your false claim/lie, evo chump.

GeraldtheGnome: Zeffur is for evolution. Bob is for evolution. Zeffur is a creationist. Bob is a creationist. Zeffur is a fake creationist. Bob is a fake creationist. Zeffur is an agnostic atheist. Bob is an agnostic atheist. Zeffur and Bob are polytheist. Zeffur and Bob are against religion. Zeffur and Bob have proof that a god named God is around and that Jesus does exist. Bob and Zeffur worship the Ancient Greek gods and goddesses. Bob and Zeffur don’t worship Ancient Greek and goddesses. Bob and Zeffur know that abiogenesis did occur. Bob and Zeffur know that it never occurred. Bob and Zeffur are secretly gay lovers. Bob and Zeffur are straight.

Bob and Zeffur believe in magic. Bob and Zeffur don’t believe in magic. Bob and Zeffur can prove that everything in Genesis chapter one is true and that Adam and Eve are Mentioned to have been created from nothing in chapter one. Bob and Zeffur cannot do that.

So to everyone, including Bob and Zeffur, tell me what you agree and disagree about with this message.

GeraldTheGnumbnut: Zeffur likes bobbie's dick

GeraldtheGnome: Is Zeffur aa proven liar or is it assumed that he is a liar ? In other words is it possible that he is not a liar ? Sure, if there ever has been a time when Zeffur has been proven to be a liar then myself and/or someone on this site has been able to prove it. Let me try a test out on Zeffur to find out what the go is with him. Perception versus whatever is really so basically.

To Zeffur. Does everyone on here, including myself, who doesn't agree with you lie all of the time on this science forum ?

zeffur: @Fergie:

Wrong-as usual. You are liars. All of you idiots claim that bio-evolution is true. That is a lie. There is ZERO proof that it is true or that it has ever actually occurred. And no, I don't need to disprove anything that has never been proven to be true. The burden of proof is on you confused, irrational, & delusional dimwits who have chosen to believe bio-evolution is true when in reality it is just fiction for gullible fools.

You are just a stupid liar.

GeraldtheGnome: Zeffur. You did not answer the question. Do we, as in those that don’t agree with you, lie all of the time on this science forum ?

GeraldtheGnome: It’s not bio-evolution and you haven’t once disproven anything about evolution.

zeffur:

TheloniousSphereMonk: ...and poor ole Zeff shows everyone that he knows nothing about evolution yet again.

zeffur: You are a moron.

TheloniousSphereMonk: You just can't help but display your ignorance, can you???

TheloniousSphereMonk: Allow me to explain this very simple concept to you a different way...

When Harp, TiU, Beligian etc provide you with evidence supporting abiogenesis you say, "Nature has no intelligence to form life" because you assume (probably correctly) that they believe intelligence was not involved in the process and that they don't believe in God. However, their personal beliefs are irrelevant. The evidence they provide should be considered on it's own.

Lets say a theist who believes that abiogenesis occurred presented the same evidence. Would your ploy be of any use? No, it wouldn't, because that one believes that God is the source of the intelligence required. However, his belief is also irrelevant and the evidence he provides should be considered on its own.

Your problem is that you can not consider evidence independent of your personal bias.

I do hope you can finally grasp this...lol