Search results

No, you get an edited version of what a scientist is explaining, then repeat some made up conclusion which the scientist cannot be scientifically saying , then pretend the scientist is saying something he is not and straightaway get abusive should anyone point out your fault. It's what...

Yes, Ive noticed how you are always abusive first. You've posted the same vids, how many times now? .... never address the glaring problems with the false conclusions you darw from them but start cussing and name calling, still pretending to be oblivious to the fact Dawkins doesn't say...

You're always so angry and abusive. Sign of a lost argument and poor personality. I think people like you and the likes of Lucrum must suffer from a form of inverted intellectualism, where you think it's clever or somehow superior to be ignorant. You can't even read a simple sentence...

Oh dear. 3rd time of trying. Seriously? You can’t surely expect to be taken seriously if you're always going to be that ridiculous. Although of course religion does rely an awful lot on the utterly ridiculous. Try it this way then. Evolving universes signify............the values of...

Yes you are a troll. Hawking may well have written it , but you like a sheep to slaughter , picked it up from some religious website, who will have intended it to be misunderstood, and so you do. Then it’s trolled around like only a religious closed mind can , and anyone who doesn't...

LOL. :D A choice between science or woo . Not a very intelligent argument but then what to expect…you are a religious wing nut Jem.

The practice of science in relation to the creation demands one be agnostic. Rubbish. Agnostic is 'can't know'. There's nothing in science or anything scientific that says it can't be known how the universe came about, or what you call creation. There is in practice, really no such...

You don't understand what's being said. You're quoting Hawking so you should start from here and stop confusing yourself with bits and pieces you keep lifting while attempting to form religious pre-conclusions ... "Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than...

One thing not speculative is how you are always trolling around with a bunch of pre-selected mined quote cut and paste edits you keep pretending say what ever you want them to. At least you've confirmed CaptainObvious's "religous whack jobs" comment as correct.

A theory of creation based upon fact and scientific verifiable evidence cannot sensibly be compared alongside religious alternatives which have no basis in reality or any evidence whatsoever, verifiable or not. The question of creation will only ever be rationally determined through scientific...

That is not using the same logic. Where do you possibly get that idea from ? There is no theory of God that corresponds with scientific theory. Proof without certainty is scientific theory. Certainty without proof is God theory (as if it even makes theory) And it’s simply desperate to...

You mean in my always the same persona, as opposed to your sockpuppet res judicata / jem trolling religious birther denier creationist - persona? The definition is clear. You simply struggle with it until you've managed to confuse yourself again.

Waiting for proof.. ...atheist.

Exactly why he cannot be saying what you are always trying to pretend he is. Penrose is explaining how impossibly fine a (metaphorical) Creator's aim would have to be to select a low entropy universe such as this one. So as a creationist you turn that inside out to say something he doesn't ...

No belief is a belief......nah that doesn't work either.

So God is just another word for science and science another word for God.....nah. That really doesn't work.

It's perfectly clear by now you don't understand a thing that's being said to you, no need to froth at the mouth so much. The thing you call 'Penroses calculation' is no such thing. To do probability you need a probability function. There isn't one to be seen. So someone has clipped Penrose...

Right so, is it that you agreeing with my argument or trying not to concede to it by saying I'm stating or implying things I have and do not? You agree with a catholic church school's right to personalize, verbally offensively abuse and demonize their pupils against other classmates, but...

..but don't defend the right of students to respond themselves at the institution to some sick, twisted shit you defend a church's right to preach.

Well yes, it may well be irrelevant to what you are saying, but it isn't irrelevant to what I am saying. As far as I am aware, KKK cannot force or oblige anyone to attend a meeting to hear their hateful bigoted preaching. Apparently the catholic church thought in De Salle school they could...