You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Hawking: God did not create Universe
- Thread starter Free Thinker
- Start date
It is amazing to me that the trolls who lie their ass off about science here on ET - like you and fraudcurrents go around accusing others of being dishonest.
you can't point to a single mistaken statement I have made which I would not admit or did admit was a mistake. whereas you lied about the state of science every day for years and years... including your lie about there being plenty of science showing life evolved from non life.
and you just implicitly lied by acting like you have always admitted God is a possible explanation for creation. (you admitted it once or twice over the last 7 years and yet wrote 100s of posts acting like it is low function to believe there could be a Creator.... you even did it on few pages ago.
you can't point to a single mistaken statement I have made which I would not admit or did admit was a mistake. whereas you lied about the state of science every day for years and years... including your lie about there being plenty of science showing life evolved from non life.
and you just implicitly lied by acting like you have always admitted God is a possible explanation for creation. (you admitted it once or twice over the last 7 years and yet wrote 100s of posts acting like it is low function to believe there could be a Creator.... you even did it on few pages ago.
..and that's another good example of why you're clearly a fundamentally dishonest person.
Last edited:
It is amazing to me that the trolls who lie their ass off about science here on ET - like you and fraudcurrents go around accusing others of being dishonest.
you can't point to a single mistaken statement I have made which I would not admit or did admit was a mistake. whereas you lied about the state of science every day for years and years... including your lie about there being plenty of science showing life evolved from non life.
and you just implicitly lied by acting like you have always admitted God is a possible explanation for creation. (you admitted it once or twice over the last 7 years and yet wrote 100s of posts acting like it is low function to believe there could be a Creator.... you even did it on few pages ago.
...and there it is again and just as I said. Yet another example of your fundamental dishonesty. At the core you must truly be a deceitful person who really can't help themself.
Of course I can and have pointed to numerous repetitive dishonest comments you make which you never admit to and here we are again, you're making two of them simply because you're incapable of being honest in what you say.
So for the umpteenth time I have never said "plenty of science showing life evolved from non life."
That you have to stoop to distorting my statement to curve fit your untruthful position speaks volumes about your thorough lack of honesty.
My statement has always been in clear terms of "plenty of science showing how life can evolve from non life". Which is a completely true comment. I have never made the definitive strawman statement you misrepresent with, that "science shows life evolved from non life."
Now as you stated above, will you or did you ever admit you've at least made a mistake? No, didn't think so.
Then there's your deception about me acting as if God is a possible explanation for anything let alone all of creation. I have never said or implied that unless you utterly distort the meaning of language itself, which of course you will do to feed the nonsense you pathetically try to defend.
Are you trying to pretend when anyone uses a capital C in Creator they can only mean God despite everything else? I distinctly put Gravity as the Creator of the Universe and you say that means I implied God. Only a fibber would insist I did any such thing.
Normally one would put that down to you just being stupid but of course you have form. Purposely misrepresenting in order to lie about what's actually being said is what you do instinctively and why you must be a fundamentally dishonest person.
Now as you stated above, will you or did you ever admit you've at least made a mistake? No, didn't think so.
Then your comments have been riddled with the falsehood that science and scientists are saying categorically the Universe IS fine tuned, although all any reputable scientist has ever remarked is that the Universe APPEARS fine tuned. There simply is no science to confirm it IS fine tuned.
Another blatant distortion that fits perfectly in the realms of your constant lies and deceptions to support nothing more than a delusion for imaginary God.
Now as you stated above, will you or did you ever admit you've at least made a mistake? No, didn't think so.
You're basically too much of a dishonest person to admit to your dishonesty.
Last edited:
you are so full of shit in every way... you absolutely stated it and I have linked to it in the past.
You put the word "can" in to change the nature of you lies in later quotes...
Stu said...
"There is plenty of science showing life from non life."
http://elitetrader.com/vb/showthrea...cience showing life from non life#post3270666
You put the word "can" in to change the nature of you lies in later quotes...
Stu said...
"There is plenty of science showing life from non life."
http://elitetrader.com/vb/showthrea...cience showing life from non life#post3270666
...and there it is again and just as I said. Yet another example of your fundamental dishonesty. At the core you must truly be a deceitful person who really can't help themself.
Of course I can and have pointed to numerous repetitive dishonest comments you make which you never admit to and here we are again, you're making two of them simply because you're incapable of being honest in what you say.
So for the umpteenth time I have never said "plenty of science showing life evolved from non life."
That you have to stoop to distorting my statement to curve fit your untruthful position speaks volumes about your thorough lack of honesty.
My statement has always been in clear terms of "plenty of science showing how life can evolve from non life". Which is a completely true comment. I have never made the definitive strawman statement you misrepresent with, that "science shows life evolved from non life."
Now as you stated above, will you or did you ever admit you've at least made a mistake? No, didn't think so.
Then there's your deception about me acting as if God is a possible explanation for anything let alone all of creation. I have never said or implied that unless you utterly distort the meaning of language itself, which of course you will do to feed the nonsense you pathetically try to defend.
Are you trying to pretend when anyone uses a capital C in Creator they can only mean God despite everything else? I distinctly put Gravity as the Creator of the Universe and you say that means I implied God. Only a fibber would insist I did any such thing.
Normally one would put that down to you just being stupid but of course you have form. Purposely misrepresenting in order to lie about what's actually being said is what you do instinctively and why you must be a fundamentally dishonest person.
Now as you stated above, will you or did you ever admit you've at least made a mistake? No, didn't think so.
Then your comments have been riddled with the falsehood that science and scientists are saying categorically the Universe IS fine tuned, although all any reputable scientist has ever remarked is that the Universe APPEARS fine tuned. There simply is no science to confirm it IS fine tuned.
Another blatant distortion that fits perfectly in the realms of your constant lies and deceptions to support nothing more than a delusion for imaginary God.
Now as you stated above, will you or did you ever admit you've at least made a mistake? No, didn't think so.
You're basically too much of a dishonest person to admit to your dishonesty.
Quote from jem:
Stu here is your quote... and you have stated it in other places.
Stu is denying he every said this on another thread.
Every few weeks he tries to pretend there is proof of life coming from non life... then when we present the science he denies he said it and makes up similar lies to the ones above.
Quote from Stu:
I do seriously wonder if all your chairs are at home Jem.
I say this ....."There is plenty of science showing life from non life."
It is obvious to anyone who cares to look how that is quite true. Thereâs no pretence No mention of proof of life from non life⦠even though there is proof of how lifeâs essential components do arise naturally from inorganic matter.
So you say, I said this....." he tries to pretend there is proof of life coming from non life... "
You do that to everything don't you? Words and meaning must change as they pass through that creationist filter between your ears because you just donât want to understand the reality.
It's incredible what religious delusion must have done to your ability to think straight.
And who is this "we" presenting science?
Just be careful is all I advise. You've shown many worrying signs of having a split personality with all that weird screen name business on quite a few previous occasions. Now this.
"We" don't want any more of that unhealthy kind of thing now do "we"?
Stu here is your quote... and you have stated it in other places.
Stu is denying he every said this on another thread.
Every few weeks he tries to pretend there is proof of life coming from non life... then when we present the science he denies he said it and makes up similar lies to the ones above.
Quote from Stu:
I do seriously wonder if all your chairs are at home Jem.
I say this ....."There is plenty of science showing life from non life."
It is obvious to anyone who cares to look how that is quite true. Thereâs no pretence No mention of proof of life from non life⦠even though there is proof of how lifeâs essential components do arise naturally from inorganic matter.
So you say, I said this....." he tries to pretend there is proof of life coming from non life... "
You do that to everything don't you? Words and meaning must change as they pass through that creationist filter between your ears because you just donât want to understand the reality.
It's incredible what religious delusion must have done to your ability to think straight.
And who is this "we" presenting science?
Just be careful is all I advise. You've shown many worrying signs of having a split personality with all that weird screen name business on quite a few previous occasions. Now this.
"We" don't want any more of that unhealthy kind of thing now do "we"?
Finally, here is how Stu operates... .
"Sure, Creator is one possible explanation and Gravity fits that bill."
and then later tries to blame me for his bullshit purposely crafted imprecise sentence structure.
Stu you said Gravity fits that bill you --- did not say exclusively or only fits that bill. Plus you Capitialized Creator. Leaving the door open for a Deist God and the God of Abraham etc... to also fit the bill.
Don't try your troll rewording with me.
What you wrote is not the same as saying only Gravity could be the Creator.
You left the door open for other Creators in that sentence particularly by using the capital.
Don't call me the liar here you troll. You wrote the sentence that did not properly convey the meaning you now wish.
"Sure, Creator is one possible explanation and Gravity fits that bill."
and then later tries to blame me for his bullshit purposely crafted imprecise sentence structure.
Stu you said Gravity fits that bill you --- did not say exclusively or only fits that bill. Plus you Capitialized Creator. Leaving the door open for a Deist God and the God of Abraham etc... to also fit the bill.
Don't try your troll rewording with me.
What you wrote is not the same as saying only Gravity could be the Creator.
You left the door open for other Creators in that sentence particularly by using the capital.
Don't call me the liar here you troll. You wrote the sentence that did not properly convey the meaning you now wish.
Last edited:
Finally, here is how Stu operates... .
"Sure, Creator is one possible explanation and Gravity fits that bill."
and then later tries to blame me for his bullshit purposely crafted imprecise sentence structure.
Stu you said Gravity fits that bill you --- did not say exclusively or only fits that bill. Plus you Capitialized Creator. Leaving the door open for a Deist God and the God of Abraham etc... to also fit the bill.
Don't try your troll rewording with me.
What you wrote is not the same as saying only Gravity could be the Creator.
You left the door open for other Creators in that sentence particularly by using the capital.
Don't call me the liar here you troll. You wrote the sentence that did not properly convey the meaning you now wish.
You use the word "troll" a lot. I think there is psychological term for that.