Search results

That ALL life on earth is carbon based is pointless and irrelevant having no pertinence to the point made, which as a creationist, was a point you can't handle. As usual. That's why you say irrelevant and pointless things. P.S. Your photo, your nasty teeth. Get your own shitty stuff fixed...

Still trying to get some pseudo-scientific graffiti nonsense to stick on the wall Jem while all the time completely missing the point of what you're demonstrating.

The only random chance in the universe was and is one which a theist imagines.

Posting another pointless and irrelevant statement having little to do with the topic to that plug ugly photo of yourself all the time like you are suffering from some obsessive compulsive disorder, is just going to increase your already overwhelming level of fuckwittedness. So as I say...

The only thing you've busted is your own ass trying to be the ultimate crazed troll. The links are not altered. They are identical. Anyone can see that. I can't help you being a delusional crackpot. That's going to remain your own problem. Jem repeats his dumb posts over and over even...

Lol. Your links are crap. They are about stuff you know clearly nothing about , make some bullshit nonsense claims around , can't follow through on, have nothing to offer and don't work when straightforward quoted. The reason why everything sounds stupid to you is because you are basically...

My "quoted version" shows exactly the same links you moron. The links I quoted are exactly the same as those in your original source post. wtf is wrong with you!? Nothing but false accusations, no substance, and now you come back a week later, bitchin like a retard over links that don't...

False anaolgy. Democritus's prediction was fundamentally based upon verifiable observation and established knowledge. God is merely an imaginary concept based on sweet f-a. To think it's the 21st century and there are theists who still seriously try to argue a childish imaginary friend...

That is certainly not the basis of science. Verification is quite the contrary of assumption. However, the making of simplistic assumptions on behalf of atheists, IS what theists do a lot of.

They are identical. Get over it. I have no problem with the original links. They merely show you making a total retard of yourself. All ready explained why your statements about Penrose are nonsense . All you can do is repeat the same dead beat claim. But you're a creationist. It's what...

.. you can't reason why, but only claim it is.

You're a creationist. You can't even understand your own reasoning when it is fed back to you.

I changed nothing you idiot. The links are identical. You've no argument , no substance, now you're blaming me because links won't work in the quote function. Claiming everything is wrong just because it doesn't fit with your own contorted ideas,like a wino caught in the act of stealing...

You only say that because you are religious and anti-atheist.

Despite what you say, as you cannot prove God does exist, and as you also cannot prove 'it can't be proved God doesn't exist' - that would leave no reason or rational argument to base a possibility that It does exist.

I 'quoted' your links as you posted them. You're confused. It's Jem who alters what people say. Face it, you two have entirely lost the plot. You've nothing, no substance. You're only repeating the same dumb mantras of meaningless baseless assertion laced with infantile insult. There is...

"Surveys indicate" anything they want. We were, you were, talking about what could be proved and what could not. Not about what a majority of people might think. Certainly some people are anti-theist. It doesn't make other atheists anti-theist who just recognize there to be nothing rational ...

The argument that God cannot be proved not to exist, is just as invalid and pointless as saying, it cannot be proved: that some God cannot be proved to not exist. Asking for proof of a negative ignores reality, in which affirmatives prove things. Let's say for instance... seeing as how...

Which one? It can't be both :) But you are right in the latter , if there ever were such a thing as God, only by science could it be discovered as existing. I see. So are you saying essentially, agnostic is atheist. With which I would agree.

Interesting points, but two things... To distinguish between an atheist and an agnostic you should compare an apolitical person to any other political person. "But the possibility of God cannot be proven false." The possibility of God cannot be proven - period.