1. Comment #132783 by wooter on February 25, 2008 at 7:50 am

A tale of possibility versus a tale of impossibility.

If the universe needs a cause, then why doesn't God need a cause? And if God doesn't need a cause, why should the universe need a cause? In reply, Christians should use the following reasoning:
1.Everything which has a beginning has a cause.1
2.The universe has a beginning.
3.Therefore the universe has a cause.
Its important to stress the words in bold type. The universe requires a cause because it had a beginning, as will be shown below. God, unlike the universe, had no beginning, so doesn't need a cause. In addition, Einstein's general relativity, which has much experimental support, shows that time is linked to matter and space. So time itself would have begun along with matter and space.
Since God, by definition, is the creator of the whole universe, he is the creator of time. Therefore He is not limited by the time dimension He created, so has no beginning in time God is the high and lofty One that inhabiteth eternity (Isaiah 57:15). Therefore He doesn't have a cause.
In contrast, there is good evidence that the universe had a beginning. This can be shown from the Laws of Thermodynamics, the most fundamental laws of the physical sciences.
1st Law: The total amount of mass-energy in the universe is constant.
2nd Law: The amount of energy available for work is running out, or entropy is increasing to a maximum.

If the total amount of mass-energy is limited, and the amount of usable energy is decreasing, then the universe cannot have existed forever, otherwise it would already have exhausted all usable energy the heat death of the universe. For example, all radioactive atoms would have decayed, every part of the universe would be the same temperature, and no further work would be possible.
So the obvious corollary is that the universe began a finite time ago with a lot of usable energy, and is now running down.
Now, what if the questioner accepts that the universe had a beginning, but not that it needs a cause? But it is self-evident that things that begin have a cause no-one really denies it in his heart. All science and history would collapse if this law of cause and effect were denied. So would all law enforcement, if the police didn't think they needed to find a cause for a stabbed body or a burgled house.
Also, the universe cannot be self-caused nothing can create itself, because that would mean that it existed before it came into existence, which is a logical absurdity.

In summary
1.The universe (including time itself) can be shown to have had a beginning.
2. It is unreasonable to believe something could begin to exist without a cause.
3. God, as creator of time, is outside of time. Since therefore He has no beginning in time, He has always existed, so doesn't need a cause.
From Christian answers web page.

Other Comments by wooter

2. Comment #133247 by wooter on February 26, 2008 at 1:22 am

("Also, God cannot be self-caused nothing can create itself, because that would mean that it existed before it came into existence, which is a logical absurdity."
Can you spot any logical error here?)

God is self evident through his arts â€" different colours of million species, If there is an art , there is an artist . We never say if there is a painting then there is chances and luck that made that painting by chance.

Other Comments by wooter

3. Comment #133250 by wooter on February 26, 2008 at 1:24 am

He's been around "always", but apparently got bored with bashing the bishop so created everything a few thousand years ago. Makes sense. Sign me up.
{/sarcasm}

Speaking of sarcasm, ( I am trying to be scientific and logical with you but when you push your luck, I would say you started it) let me share my sarcasm with you:

Once upon a time there was a liar. He always lied but his only friend was around him to cover up his liars. Again Liar Liar started lying; He said :this morning there was eggs falling down from sky. His cover-up friend just supported him. It was the eagles that got the eggs from the farm. Another day LIAR LIAR again was at it. He said this morning, I heard the sounds from sky. I guess there were sheep in the sky. Cover up guy just corrected it again, "It was the eagle that took the sheep away from the farm. Another day, it was his habit and he continued, "today I hunted down a bird with my arrow and when I went to take my bird, amazingly, I saw that the bird cooked already, roasted perfectly along with green salad and drink on the table waiting for me. The cover â€"up guy could not take it anymore and said, "Oh man, I covered â€"up you all the time but this time you lied in such a way that neither me nor my logic can cover you up? You have gone too far. You are having fun and enjoying yourself only. Your liars cannot be covered up anymore.

Other Comments by wooter

4. Comment #134633 by wooter on February 28, 2008 at 4:03 am

To: Jon_Sociologist
(The fact that I was jumping on the bandwagon may explain, but it does not excuse my actions. Sorry wooter, for implying that you are an idiot, and a fucktard.)


Thanks for all your psychoanalyzing me. I am deeply impresses and moved. I guess it is my turn.

1. As far as I know that scientists will answer any questions in the same way it is asked without dodging by being funny, swearing, slandering, smearing exchanging jokes to support one another to feel that evolution theory is safe.

Example;
I asked a simple question;

1. How does E.T explain luck and coincidence or chances that have no consciousness is able to design and create intelligible, conscious creation, human being who can hear, see, feel. Sad or happy?

And here are the answers of atheists role models;

GROUP COHESION?
(Why are you posting here? Is this some kind of attempt to convert us all?)

{takes cover, waits for wooter's head to explode} Steve
(I think wooter is covering his ears and saying, 'la la la la la, can't here you, la la la la, Jesus help me now, la la la la.....')

I donna wanna quote rest of other responses full of F word which is number one characteristic of this web page. So we can change the title into;
GROUP SWEARING
GROUP SUPPORTING
GROUP THERAPY

TAKE YOUR PICK.

I DO NOT IMPLY ANYTHING, really since logic has done enough.

Other Comments by wooter

5. Comment #134634 by wooter on February 28, 2008 at 4:04 am

Reverend is an exception although his answers are full of naughty words, still trying to answer me. I appreciate that.

Other Comments by wooter

6. Comment #134635 by wooter on February 28, 2008 at 4:06 am

Jon_Sociologist 2

Banning the ideas or people's answers, will take us to the time of Stalin who was an atheist too, which once my answers are deliberately deleted leaving only atheists' answers.

Actually what you -evolins- are trying to is to squeeze an elephant in a can of coke while trying to prove evolution is fact. And logic says there is a big stage of the earth that each animal has got a spot since the beginning. But your mindset is fixed on luck and chances to explain creation and still struggle to prove that you are right doing in general

Fake transitional fossils
Fake experiments â€" Moth experiment
Writing books like selfish gene or blindwatchmaker
Web pages
Slandering, smearing, mocking, swearing others who disagree with you?

Is it really worth it? What is the difference between Don Quixote and the struggle to prove E.T is a fact?

Other Comments by wooter

7. Comment #134640 by wooter on February 28, 2008 at 4:09 am

Personal attachments

(Also, God cannot be self-caused nothing can create itself, because that would mean that it existed before it came into existence, which is a logical absurdity.")

CREATOR AND CREATION CANNOT BE THE SAME KIND. The creator can reflect his knowledge, art, perfection and wisdom on his CREATURES so that we can understand God through his creation.

Second if evolution is logically impossible, which I proved it so far, we have got only one option that is compatible with logic and science.

To Clunk
I will take your advice you better take mine too. Try to take evolution from delusion land to logic land and when you do that if you can just give me a ring.

to; emmet
(Me! Me! Me! I can! I can! Do I win a lollipop?)
You are half twin of tyler? You are so funny. Please do not say me me me. Otherwise I will think about METHINKS that would make think blindweachmaker's jealousy.

Tyler said: make the same elementary mistake?

Analogy: comparison based on such resemblance (Webster dictionaryO
Millions of creations with different colours from peacock to bats amd with different structures from and to elephant are a great exhibition of God's art.

Tyler maybe you better you hold your breath, no offence.

Oh man I feel funny when I explain these kind of stuff.

Irate: thank you for the adjectives you describe yourself. Getting to know each other better.



(Mutations are random; Selection is non-random. This means that overall evolution is not random.)
In English please?


(Wooter,
(Your Parable of the Liar was lost on me, I didn't understand a word of it - could you possibly explain that one a bit better?)

Hmm let's try another way of logic:

"It's not outside the realm of possibility that Beelzebufo took down lizards and mammals and smaller frogs, and even -- considering its size -- possibly hatchling dinosaurs," Krause said in a telephone interview. http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080218/sc_nm/frog_devil_dc
Or

1. How does E.T explain luck and coincidence or chances that have no consciousness is able to design and create intelligible, conscious creation, human being who can hear, see, feel. Sad or happy?

To eepist
The greater the disability (or handicap) of the creator, the more impressive the achievement.

So you are saying that a blind and crippled person can draw or do painting a lot better than a healthy person? Interesting? Do you want me to answer this? I hope not.

Other Comments by wooter

8. Comment #135330 by wooter on February 28, 2008 at 8:50 pm

To: PJG
(watch the Potholer54)

Please write the web page again. I will watch it.

Other Comments by wooter

9. Comment #135491 by wooter on February 29, 2008 at 3:26 am

Spot the wooter
Spot the evolution(!).

1. We have got around 1,000 different scent receptors our nose, with which we are able to detect more than 10,000 smells through by way of the magnificent scent perception system in the nose. How does luck and chances can do that? I can smell pizza or I can smell scrambled egg. How is that possible with selfish genes or natural selection or blind watchmaker?

2. "While today's digital hardware is extremely impressive, it is clear that the human retina's real-time performance goes unchallenged. Actually, to simulate 10 milliseconds (one1hundredth of a second) of the complete processing of even single nerve cell from the retina would require the solution of about 500 simultaneous nonlinear differential equations 100 times and would take at least several minutes of processing time on a Cray supercomputer. Keeping in mind that there are 10 million or more such cells interacting with each other in complex ways, it would take a minimum of 100 years of Cray time to simulate what takes place in your eye many times every second."

Other Comments by wooter

10. Comment #135493 by wooter on February 29, 2008 at 3:28 am

To: Jon_Sociologist
Thank for your answer without any swearing, or trying to get funny to be evasive.

(Compare this explanation to Intelligent Design. I have never seen a believable explanation for how "god" managed to create humans who can hear, see, feel, and suffer or be happy.)

DNA refutes evolution; Even there is a web page about it. I explained my analogies regarding DNA which is definitely impossible to come into existence by again unconscious and blind chances and luck. That is why we have only one option that there is a creator. We can't try to decorate your room by wind or luck instead of hiring a decorator. You would be an empty room as well. The atheists' thinking wrong starts when they look for the designer or creator among the bricks of the house. It does not make sense neither for your students nor anyone's logic.

Amazing DNA
The information stored in DNA must by no means be underestimated. So much so that one human DNA molecule contains enough information to fill a million-page encyclopaedia, or to fill about 1,000 books. Note this fact well: one million encyclopaedia pages, or 1,000 books. This is to say that the nucleus of each cell contains as much information as would fill a one-million-page encyclopaedia, which is used to control the functions of the human body. To draw an analogy, we can state that even the 23-volume-Encyclopaedia Britannica, one of the greatest mines of information in the world, has 25,000 pages. Therefore, before us lies an incredible picture. In a molecule found in a nucleus, which is far smaller than the microscopic cell wherein it is located, there exists a data warehouse 40 times bigger than the biggest encyclopaedia of the world that includes millions of items of information. This means a huge 1000-volume encyclopaedia which is unique and has no equal in the world.
From: http://www.dnarefutesevolution.com/human_celli.html


To be continued

Other Comments by wooter

11. Comment #136284 by wooter on February 29, 2008 at 5:26 pm

To reverend
Reverend how many sources did you read about evolution so far?

I read many you know what the sources about refution of evolution is much more than the ones about evolution.

HERE ARE MORE:
http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/4014/
http://creationsafaris.com/crev200802.htm
http://www.darwinisdead.com/

Wooter - say his name three times and Wipeout appears.

I am sorry chap. Not only wipeout is wooter but also 84 percent of world population is wooter because they can think.

Other Comments by wooter

12. Comment #136288 by wooter on February 29, 2008 at 5:38 pm

(You remind me of my kids when they were small.)

What evolution theory remindS me and rest of the world. Darwin searches something in the little pond with Bertrand Russell

Darwin: Did you find any amino acids?
Bertrand: Not a chance?
Darwin: Why can't we?
Bertrand: I don't you. You know how thermo dynamics lawS work?
Darwin: I know but we need some luck:
Bertrand: Random non random?
Darwin: I don't care. We gotto prove it.
Bertrand: But we can't.
Darwin: So what do we do know?
Bertrand: I can't find it then no evolution. Then I will do at least one thing. Deny the creation. I can't prove it we can deny the creation. This is the best. I am going to art exhibition. Are you coming along?
Darwin: maybe later. I will try to find blindwatcmaker or menotthinking.
Bertrand: Good luck.
Darwin: yeah WE INDEED NEED GOOD LUCK.



Natural Selection Made Easy (9minutes 48 seconds)
http://ie.youtube.com/watch?v=R_RXX7pntr8

The question is how we smell of different foods and gas, oil, etc? I repeat my questions and explain it based on LOGIC AND SCIENCE NOT NON-RANDOM SELECTION OR ANY OTHER FANTASIEZ. We entire world are dying to know

1. How our body works perfectly in great communication, cooperation?
2. Our conscious
3. Our soul
4. Our lovely big frog
5. Time needed for E.T
6. Amino acid and their correct chain is arranged by luck
7. The letters in DNA string and their right combination

I can go on if you want.

Sorry to say, still you are in little pond and non-random stories. Please take E.T to the light of truth, science and logic.

Other Comments by wooter

13. Comment #137566 by wooter on March 3, 2008 at 7:32 am

To: Jon_Sociologist
(Natural selection then selects for and against the various genes in a non-random fashion.)

The problem is here again E.T always refers something that is unconscious, unreasonable â€" no idea how I call, but let's say, - imaginary ITDIDIT THINGS LIKE natural selection â€" menotthinking â€" just being sarcastic â€" selfish genes, blindwatchmaker to explain the creation. This is where our logic is getting in the way;
Unconscious things cannot be a cause for conscious things to happen.
Unconscious things cannot design conscious things. The key word is the conscious as I gave the example with mouse and cheese analogy.


(It's also your turn. I have explained how evolution did the things you have asked. Now you need to answer how you think god did it. How did god make our sense of smell? How did god make us able to feel emotion? I want the exact method. How did god make the chemical receptors in your nose? What evidence can you present to support any answer given?)

Wooter's reply
The question is why rather than how? The kind of approach does not lead us anywhere. It is same question to ask the architect how you did design the Buckingham palace. Show me how? Otherwise I will deny your art. That does not make sense. If you want to learn how we can look into all science books or medicine books how creations are created and human beings in mother's womb. Science is the curtain of God, with which God display his art and how HE does it. I wrote before science is like a microscope or telescope that searches and finds out how God's creation is done.

Other Comments by wooter

14. Comment #137567 by wooter on March 3, 2008 at 7:34 am

(We are by no means perfect at communication.)

So you're saying, our body parts, brain, tongue, stomach gallbladder never communicate when we eat some food and food goes down through our throat? The stomach receives different amount of acid according to the amount and kind of the food, which is arranged by brain and which is directed by our sense of taste.

Indeed communication and cooperation is a great feature among the creations. WE JUST NEED TO LOOK INTO IT. Because randomness will not survive in perfectly designed systems.


(Flawed or fallacious logic is logic all the same.)

Logic is the one and has got the one door for anyone on the earth.
If I see a computer
my logic says somebody assembled it.
If I see a TV
My logic says somebody made it.

If I see a house, a decorated house
My logic says somebody built the house and decorated it.

If I see the earth like a big house with the decorations in it; trees, sun, plants, vegetables, fruits, fruit, animals, chickens, sheep, cows,
Then my logic says somebody made it.
So logic cannot be speculated for certain perceptions.

Like 2x 2 = 4.

Other Comments by wooter

15. Comment #138191 by wooter on March 4, 2008 at 3:39 am

epeeist
You can talk to Darwin and Bertrand Russell who were looking for amino acids in the soup and when you find it, it is your turn again. By the way thank you for your very descriptive language of yourself and this web page features. Way to go. You are almost there to prove that E.T is not fact but only a vocabulary of foul language. By the way you live along with Mr Dawkins?

Mithchell
(What a larf, ever heard of indigestion? Acid reflux? Heart burn? Alcers?)

Sicknesses are the results of our indifference to eat anything carelessly
If any building is going down in structure because of bad care or lack of care, we cannot blame the designer since he built the house perfectly in the first place.

Do not play with the words to prove otherwise or stand against Logic. You will lose anytime anywhere and in any condition since you are attacking the windmills.

1)computers are designed
2) Our computer-like brain is designed too.

http://news.softpedia.com/news/Human-Brain-Functions-Like-a-Computer-44768.shtml

Other Comments by wooter

16. Comment #138193 by wooter on March 4, 2008 at 3:41 am

To Reverend

(Suddenly all of Wooter's posts make sense. No evidence. No logic.)
Let's see one more time for the sake of LOGIC;

Phenomenon: an object or aspect known through the senses rather than by thought or intuition; a fact or event of scientific interest susceptible to scientific description and explanation

Delusion: mean something that is believed to be true or real but that is actually false or unreal. DELUSION implies an inability to distinguish between what is real and what only seems to be real, often as the result of a disordered state of mind.

E.T:An idea that millions of species from crocodile to whales and from ants to elephants came from a little pond by all themselves.

God created all species separately and at the same time. Each animal has different body structure with different needs. Some of them went extinct to make our lives easier or some of them became smaller like frogs. God created his palace like earth along with the animals. God arranged the sun and world location in the best way so that humans can benefit at their best. Then God created the factory like soil from which we can grow any fruit or food along with the seeds. Chickens eat the dirt and serve us nutritious eggs, sheep and cow eat the green grass and serve us white milk.

So I can go on more and more but we cannot finish it.

So which one is logical?

Please get out your lovely vocabulary insulting level to logic and then we can talk. Otherwise you will have the best title in the vanity fair of evolution

Other Comments by wooter

17. Comment #138196 by wooter on March 4, 2008 at 3:43 am

I see a selfish gene; it has no conscious.
I see a blindwatcmaker it has no conscious
I see a menotthink it has no conscious
I see luck it has no conscious
I see chances: it has no conscious

I do not see Reverend's mind then I conclude if I don't see his mind, it does not exist. But if I see his mind then, evolution does not exist. Which one?


Jon_Sociologist
(The requested user does not exist.")
How can I prove that I exist?

Hi Jon, you are very fast to go down to Mocking level from logic and science. Even when I mock I have got a point, but your mocking level sorry to say that it surely show your intellectual level. I am ready waiting for at the level of logic and science.

Other Comments by wooter

18. Comment #138601 by wooter on March 4, 2008 at 3:44 pm

To: Eeepist

I explained your questions but still you do not understand. Some of you they invite me to the museum â€"thanks- and I invite you to the exhibition, the biggest lab of the world, the earth where any second millions of creatures ARE BEING BORN, FED, PROTECTED, MULTIPLED AND SERVED THEIR PURPOSE pointing out their creator with their AMAZING ART AND CREATION. But still like you a small kid, I want to see it How, I want to see it how otherwise I will deny it? That does not make sense neither to me nor to the 84% world population of believers, the other side.

I assume that you cannot help Darwin and Russell find out the amino acids in the little pond, with the approach of best defense is to attack, you are coming all together but it does not matter I am ready to answer all of your questions. Reverend is wasting his time writing a lot of vocabulary but still no answer to my question:

I do not see Reverend's mind then I conclude if I don't see his mind, it does not exist. But if I see his mind then, evolution does not exist. Which one?

Mind

Conscious

Soul

Are a few only that are waiting for, to be explained by ET and denying them will not help to cover the truth.

You are asking amino acid and correct chain. Anybody can check the following page and prove that this system is done by evolution (using logic.)

http://biology.clc.uc.edu/courses/bio104/protein.htm

(By the way, you ignorant tool, chickens do not eat dirt. They occasionally will swallow stones and gravel to help digest the seeds, worms and insects that make up their diet.)

So this help them make the eggs? Reverend I told you to get out of your insulting vocabulary, you are just self- entertaining ego battles with I got I got him. The only you got him is to describe yourself. Calm down.


(That creates a block of understanding)

I must say that logic creates a block of understanding as well. Like any palace in the world with the decorations inside popped out by chances, luck, selfish brick, menotthinks, blind watchmaker out of only ONE BRICK â€"LITTLE POND WHERE NOBODY NOWS HOW THE LITTLE POND WAS THERE IN THE FIRST PLACE.


(It's like we're playing tennis with a blind man)

No not you. Delusional amoniacids are playing tennis with blindwatcmaker to get the right chain of order by chance.

It is really lower than mocking while I am trying to answer any insult to LOGIC SINCE LOGIC'S LEVEL AND YOUR LEVEL OF WRITING CANNOT BE MATCHED. It is quite evoling.

Let me ask a question. Say okay you don't believe. What about Death? You are not afraid of death? Since you do not believe in hereafter. The only life you will live is this life according to the evolution? When you are alone, what are the thoughts of death in your mind? For believers, we believe that life will go on after we change this dimension of the world?


HI Philip
Thanks for your invitation. But let's work on lab of the earth and live museum of the earth first.

Other Comments by wooter

19. Comment #138954 by wipeout on March 5, 2008 at 1:38 am

To this web dudes
I ain't no willing to intervine any stupid argument on this web page, but i am really tempted when i see twisted minds or mindsets obsessed with sex and related swearing- they think this is an ace card to use against anybody who are against them, like me or schemezers or kringski or wooter guy. If these are scientific answers, then, I know nothing about science. This is just ugly and ugly and ugly and ugly enough to shup their mouth up if they can't answer or argue in a polite way.

To reverend,
stop saying about me or insulting me, man. If you need a shrink i can advise you? IF i were wooter then, you are Dawkins. How does that sound? You suspiciuos dummy head.

Other Comments by wipeout

20. Comment #138984 by wipeout on March 5, 2008 at 2:21 am

(How do you define a scientific answer?)

(Seeing as he's a he: what does an omnipotent immortal g need a penis for?)

(I guess if you count telling us that g has sex with all living things)

Are these questions or arguments related to science?

Later you are blaming each other that some people can believe in wooter. To be honest, even those people who read your arguments (swearings) will feel tempted to take side of wooter or schmezers or others. You have no idea how intimidating you and your answers are. And I agree with wooter that you cannot explain Evolution theory by logic and answer his analogies the same way he does, using logic, you are only able to counter attack to cover your big holes in your E.T. by swearing or using inappropriate arguments. This will lead you to the place where you have nothing but swearing or exchanging ugly jokes.

Other Comments by wipeout

21. Comment #139137 by wooter on March 5, 2008 at 7:48 am

To eepist
I kept answering your questions again and again still you keep posting the same evolins to prove that 'you see he cannot answer me'psychology does not work anymore. Let me paste it again for the sake of other readers and logic.

I invite you to the exhibition, the biggest lab of the world, the earth where any second millions of creatures ARE BEING BORN, FED, PROTECTED, MULTIPLED AND SERVED THEIR PURPOSE pointing out their creator with their AMAZING ART AND CREATION. If you still need prove or you say there is not enough proof then you just join up the club of "not enough evidence not enough evidence' along with bertrand Russell.

Other Comments by wooter

22. Comment #139172 by wooter on March 5, 2008 at 8:53 am

This is a gift from me to English language as the synonym of cretins.

Other Comments by wooter

23. Comment #139175 by wooter on March 5, 2008 at 8:54 am

To: Epeeist again(!)

((Stat a new thread on here:))
http://www.richarddawkins.net/forum/viewforum.php?f=46

I refer this to Mr dawkins.

You better do not give any answer just to give any answer. It is really more boring than looking for amino acids in the soup. Why don't you join up the Darwin and Russell?


Oh man, you are picking on wipeout again. I am telling you he was a potential would be atheist but you made him upset. It is not good. It was almost 16 per cent plus 1 but you failed again.

Spellchecker cannot check evoling and evolins; Let me help you out:

Evole â€"evoling : the funny idea that all creations came out by luck
Evolins: the supporters of that funny idea of evoling.
This is a gift from me to English language as the synonym of cretins.

Other Comments by wooter

24. Comment #139177 by wooter on March 5, 2008 at 8:56 am

Holes in the theory of evolution? Please elaborate - what "holes" do you speak of?

All right;
The hole of unexplained primordial soup's existence â€" The stars or planets, heat etc is not an answer that by luck planets produced amino acids and there you go we have got a protein soup. This is just a delusional soup.
The hole of unexplained aminoacids existence
The hole of unexplained unconscious blindwatchmaker, chances, luck cause the designed and conscious creatures like us.
The hole of unexplained time problem that is needed for E.T
The hole of unexplained Leaping from one creature to another without any transitional creatures â€" monsters like ones if it were true.
The hole of unexplained passing information from Dna to another dna of diffrenet creatures.
The hole of unexplained of solar system with perfect design and location thah makes years, days and nights for us â€" although this design and perfect location is so amazing, some of you still do not go the thinking level from being funny level since it is hard to explain with E.T
The hole of unexplained soul's existence.
The hole of unexplained of existence of vegetables, fruits and plants and their cooperation and design with sunlight, photosynthesis and rain.
The hole of unexplained how monkeys fell out their hair to look like us
The hole of unexplained fake fossils, the fossils found and showed that their structures are no different from our present time.

I can go on but it will be like the sieve of logic that sieves evolution idea with infinite holes, the logic will not hold anything on the top.

(How do you define "related to science"?)
How do you define a blind biologist?

To Philip
Just hang in there. My logic is on the way. Do not get lost in the jungle of evolution museum. We are still looking for the big frog's spot in there.


To reverend
Sill struggling in the vocabulary of I got him I got him. Give up man. Really it does not work. You spent almost half of dictionary but still no result because logic can stand entire vocabulary that is used on the side of evolution.

(Here is a question - answer it: You claim that god created everything at the same time. When did he do this? Please provide a date.)

Now we came from how to when? You know the earth's age don't you? If you want to get a specific date, then, you have to wait until you die. Then you can ask yourself to the angels. Because nobody can provide a certain date.


PJG
Death quotations
To be or not to be. That is the question.

The world is like a stage; We are the actors and we play our roles and we leave the stage.

People living deeply have no fear of death.

The death is indeed a very deep fear for atheist people who think that they will be gone after they die. Death is indeed a door that opens to the forever life. Of course we will see our parents and others there in the heaven. Death is the beginning not ending whether you believe or not. Everybody will die one day. But our life span is very short if you compare to a forever life.

Again sicknesses are the consequences but not the sign of any flawed design. And sicknesses are also the curtain of the Gabriel, the angel. You would not live with your great great . . . great grandfather who cannot move at all because he is too old. Death is to leave your body dress to have a new and better one.

Other Comments by wooter

25. Comment #139502 by wooter on March 6, 2008 at 2:13 am

Hi Philip
I am really sorry about your sickness. I really am. The same question is put another way as well; It is not fair. Imagine that you are a believer and study on my analogy with that perception. We are all sitting in a coffee and suddenly a guy comes in and says Okay I am a very rich person and I want to give money all of you here. He gave each of us some money. But a few of us got less money than the others. The ones who got the rest of money cannot say that it is not fair. Because we did not work or something that we can ask for what we deserve.
God created us and before that we did not exist. God created us as the best creature, a human being and God says , if you are patient and consent with what you have, I will give you more in paradise. Indeed, in paradise those who have sicknesses will be more privileged in paradise than those who were healthy in their worldly life. This world is a test for us. It is like testing the students. But God does not have the same question for everybody. Each of us has got different questions. If you think of a forever life after we die, this worldly life is â€" that is average of 65 years- just the beginning of our forever life. This world is just a place where we have out test and display our good deeds.

I will pray for your sickness. For God nothing is impossible. I hope some day you believe as well and pray for yourself. Your praying would be more valuable.

Other Comments by wooter

26. Comment #139537 by wooter on March 6, 2008 at 3:35 am

To; Reverend
(Hey chicken-boy. I noticed that you did not address the question I have now put to you three times. )

Insulting me proves that you are wrong. Anyway I am quite brave to face the truth. Are you? You know the bad words rule. Thanks for the vocab to describe yourself.

To reverend, steveroot, epeeist, Quetzalcoatl, Prankster, irate,

Let's have more fun. Updated one.
Darwin: Did you find any amino acids?
Bertrand: Not a chance?
Darwin: Why can't we?
Bertrand: I don't you. You know how thermo dynamics lawS work?
Darwin: I know but we need some luck:
Bertrand: Random non random?
Darwin: I don't care. We gotto prove it.
Bertrand: But we can't.
Darwin: So what do we do know?
Bertrand: I can't find it then no evolution. Then I will do at least one thing. Deny the creation. I can't prove it we can deny the creation. This is the best. I am going to art exhibition. Are you coming along?
Darwin: maybe later. I will try to find blindwatcmaker or menotthinking.
Bertrand: Good luck.
Darwin: yeah WE INDEED NEED GOOD LUCK.
Bertrand: What about the guys at Dawkings web page?
Darwin:They are in trouble with that wooter guy?
Bertrand:Tell them to distract the attention from us to something else.
Darwin: No worries, They asked when God created the earth?
Bertrand:What about our ET? When?
Darwin: Hush hush. Wooter guy can hear. For ET we cannot have enough time. This is another hole we can never cover up.


To reverend again
(There is no life after death)
Then challenge death if you are not chicken boy.


(Taxi for Wooter?)
Yeah to the little pond please. Bertrand and Darwin are in trouble.


Roland_F
(Catch you !! Wooter = Wipeout
Wooter = Wipeout = Selfishmind.)

I understand now why IQ is needed.
Mr smart. If you look at my comment you will see that I wrote my name under the selfish mind since that time YOU BANNED MY NAME? REMEMBER. I DID NOT HIDE ANYTHING. OFFICER, ARE YOU FAKING?

As for wipeout guy, this is your fear of wooter. You got some serious issues to solve. Poor wipeout. He is another victim of slandering.

Other Comments by wooter

27. Comment #139539 by wooter on March 6, 2008 at 3:37 am

To: Zara, To: Tyler,

If we go to a department store and just take look at the electronics department and see all kinds of equipment, tv, cd players, Mp3 phones, toasters etc,
And you just claim that

Why do you assume that the appearance of these equipment means that there really is a designer? They just came out by the mutation of iron

Or Please tell me how this electronics department "shows that there is a designer behind all equipment? They all came from the junkyard by chances. Nobody designed them and build them. Where is the engineer? He is not here right. I knew it why because we cannot see the designer. I rest my case. There is no designer. Nobody put the equipment here. They all came here by themselves.

The whole earth is like a very big department t store starting from the heater, sun, fruits, vegetables, food, soil, chickens, sheep, cows, etc. Somebody designed them and placed them. This is what logic and reason says.

GOD CANNOT BE KNOWN ONLY MIND BUT ALSO YOUR HEARTH. MIND AND HEARTH SHOULD FIND GOD TOGETHER. ONLY YOUR MIND IS UNABLE TO FIND GOD, YOUR HEARTH SHOULD BE INVOLVED IN AS WELL. HEART WITHOUT FAITH cannot find God. That is why your questions are beating bush around evading the truth.

If we see God then there will be no test.

We are limited creatures with our limited perceptions and hearing. We cannot see everything. And we cannot hear anything. Otherwise life would be unbearable if we heard the footsteps of antz. Right we don't see our mind but we use it. In our heart, we have got a lot of feelings and we don't see them but we see their consequences.

Briefly, if Monalisa says I have no artist then we say there is no Picasso. Your questions regarding when God created the earth etc is quite irrelevant what we talk about and are the consequences of having no answer about no logical foundation of evolution theory. Mocking, swearing are again is lack of self â€"confidence in what you believe and supporting each other via of exchanging jokes is another matter of trying to feel self-assured about evolution idea. The more you act like that the more you make people stay away from ET.

Other Comments by wooter

28. Comment #141045 by wipeout on March 9, 2008 at 8:10 pm

To Philip

Now I lost it. Look, Philip guy, I am crippled from birth. I can't walk or run or go to the movie theatre or any place I want to go unless I have some help.and I can't get married. I am reading this web page to look for some hope why these things HAPPENED TO ME. Now you are swearing because just you cannot have baby.
What about man?

WHAT THE FUCK ARE YOU RANTING ABOUT? What about me? What am I gonna do, man? Write a book of swearing to God?

For a couple days I am thinking about what the wooter guy wrote. I guess he is right. We are the taker not the giver. God if he exists gave us everything in return for what? Nothing. We did not pay anything.

Second, if you don't believe in God, what the fuck are you swearing about? Then your sickness is a fault of evolution. Then your swearing goes to blindwatcmaker or Darwin or whomever behind this? Stupid air head? He cannot have a baby? So what? What about me what me? What about me?

Do one thing at least. Do not swear your own evolution or do like me. Think rethink if you can?

Rest of clowns, you will give a well done ha. You crippled minds.

Other Comments by wipeout

29. Comment #141078 by wipeout on March 10, 2008 at 2:22 am

Look jackass Roland

I donna wanna lose it again. But i guess I will. My problems are enough for me. I don't give a shit what kind of psycological problems you have in your airhead. Paranoid, obsessed with that wooter guy? But do not take out your shit-like problems on me. Do not get my name involve in anything. You need a shrink go get a shrink. You can start i think everyone as wooter. Anywhere I look I see wooter. Sick sick sick.

Philip,
Can I get back to you later. I am not in the mood now.

Other Comments by wipeout

30. Comment #141125 by Wheeler on March 10, 2008 at 5:04 am

Hey, why you guys making fun of wooter and wipeout guys? They are cool guy, and say things that are right, with good logic. WHY DON"T YOU GUYS ALL PREY TO DARWIN AND RUSSEL!

I just come here to find out what could be truth, but instead find no logic, and stupid people. All I see is logic in wooter and wipeout.

I was going to believe in nothing, because I thought evolution had logic, now I see that you guys sware and insult, so it must not be true.

Go worship blindwatcmaker, because you fear the logic of wooter and wipeout.

Other Comments by Wheeler

31. Comment #141146 by Wheeler on March 10, 2008 at 5:40 am

Nah, I won't do weirdo, if I had another e-mail address I'd go through the trouble, maybe, but that's too much work just for this.

Oh yes. God is real, and you are all wrong. Watch me prove it.

1 if god exists and is the creator of all except himself
2 then god exists and is the creator of all except himself.

Q.E.D.

I almost forget. You guys are stupid, and wooter is cool and has logic. Go worship blindwatcmaker, and so forth.

Other Comments by Wheeler

32. Comment #141148 by Wheeler on March 10, 2008 at 5:43 am

Hit me epeeist, my sophist skills need sharpening.

Other Comments by Wheeler

33. Comment #141156 by Wheeler on March 10, 2008 at 6:12 am

Between 6-10 thousand years. Give or take a few days.

Jon's questions?

I will want at least equivolent answers to my response, don't expect more detail than you can produce.

1) God is omnipotent, meaning He has unlimited control over space time and matter. For smell, I assume he used the latter one.

2) I don't know how he made us feel emotion exactly. I would appeal to my answer for smell. How did evolution exactly? What was the exact method? Was it the same for everything? I'm not the omniscient one.

3) For one, do you not agree that if one had unlimited control over space time and matter they could fashion the same chemical and bioloigcal receptors you proport evolution to have done? If you agree that you could, then you can only object to the premise, that god did it, not that if god exists he could. The question is moot. Lastly you seem to suppose that if god did it there would be no biological or chemical factors involved. I don't see why the two are mutually exclusive.

4) You are asking questions that supposing god doesn't exist, you still can't answer. Last I checked, abiogenesis is still almost entirely speculation. They can't answer those questions, so why do I have to? This is also an argument by question, all because I don't have all the answers or know all the details does not make my conclusion wrong. There are plenty of gaps in our understanding of the natural world, I don't suggest all natural explanations are wrong unless they answer every single minute detail. This is a clear double standard.

5) Refer to 4

6) Where do you think the matter that makes up the universe came from? Also, how do you think the milky way gots its aesthetic appearance?

7) what do you think black holes are really for?

8) He killed them them all, because he is the best; Anselm at el.

Other Comments by Wheeler

34. Comment #141163 by Wheeler on March 10, 2008 at 6:22 am

By definition, it's tautological, Steve.

The same way I know 2 plus 2 equals 4

Other Comments by Wheeler

35. Comment #141170 by Wheeler on March 10, 2008 at 6:30 am

If God does not need an artist, but He is perfect, then the Universe does not need an artist, even though it contains lovely snowflakes.

This like saying if a person doesn't need an artist neither does a painting.

Obviously a non sequitur Steve.

Other Comments by Wheeler

36. Comment #141174 by Wheeler on March 10, 2008 at 6:33 am

How can I explain anything without words Steve? Shall we mindmeld?

Other Comments by Wheeler

37. Comment #141178 by Wheeler on March 10, 2008 at 6:40 am

Either your statement above is correct, and a person does need an artist. In which case, by the same logic, so does the beautiful and complex God.

This is also a non sequitur. God and people are fundemental different things, what one requires does not necessitate that the other require.

Other Comments by Wheeler

38. Comment #141179 by Wheeler on March 10, 2008 at 6:42 am

Quetz, I hadn't realized that I revealed the entirety of my vocabulary in a few posts. Damn I really am in trouble.

God might get around to you, but, c'mon. A flamming mirror for one hand, feathers, and a snake for the other hand? Who'd worhsip that?

Other Comments by Wheeler

39. Comment #141183 by Wheeler on March 10, 2008 at 6:45 am

Then you aren't asking for an argument or a discussion at all, Steve, you are asking for empiricle evidence for something that isn't empiricle, that is a category mistake.

Other Comments by Wheeler

40. Comment #141191 by Wheeler on March 10, 2008 at 6:49 am

Then words should be sufficient? What could you mean by no words, but evidence unless you mean no arguments, only physical evidence?

Other Comments by Wheeler

41. Comment #141195 by Wheeler on March 10, 2008 at 6:53 am

Touche, Quetz.

I'm not a Christian, Roland. Kind of presumptuous of you.

Other Comments by Wheeler

42. Comment #141204 by Wheeler on March 10, 2008 at 7:00 am

MPhil, I know of the problem of omnipotence. I go with the one not restricted by logic, I don't see why our comprehencion should limit God.

The last point is just a silly one. Did Pluto not exist before we discovered it? You can't declare something can't be so because we have yet to wittness it.

You also can't claim the burdon of proof to me on my end this time "non-physical things can't effect physical things" is your claim. Which needs to be supported by more than "I have yet to see it happen!"

I am feeling a clear double standard for evidence here.

Other Comments by Wheeler

43. Comment #141206 by Wheeler on March 10, 2008 at 7:04 am

There are two reasons I can give why words are not sufficient to define something into existence:

If you are going to continue to strawman me, Steve, then don't except meaningful responses.

I never suggested that defining something into existence is an argument. You asked why I thought that, I gave a short answer, you didn't ask me to support with an argument. Now you are claiming that I argued something that I did not.

Please stick to what I say specifically, without attempting to assume my position or read between the lines. Thanks.

Other Comments by Wheeler

44. Comment #141211 by Wheeler on March 10, 2008 at 7:07 am

MPhil, critical rationalism isn't the only philosophical position.

Not every philosophical positions declares that a priori evidence isn't evidence about the world. You may think your position to be the best one (don't we all) but don't imply that it is.

I don't have to belong to any denomination to believe in a God, it is not required. I like it Ale carte.

Other Comments by Wheeler

45. Comment #141214 by Wheeler on March 10, 2008 at 7:09 am

I would totally summon him her Phil, but he'll be at the beach for at least a couple more weeks.

Other Comments by Wheeler

46. Comment #141223 by Wheeler on March 10, 2008 at 7:18 am

MPhil that is a category mistake. Believing that X obtains for Y does not necessitate that I believe X obtains for Z. My position is that the logical impossible is possible for the omnipotent, not for everything.

MPhil you are proported you specific philosophical positions as if they are the only tenable ones.

You last point is a head scratter. I'd say that it makes perfect sense to believe that a being capable of anything could influence in universe without disruption the conservation of energy and momentum.

Also "no one has wittnessed it" is not accurate, you mean "and I don't believe anyone who has claimed to have wittnessed it," not quite the same thing.

Other Comments by Wheeler

47. Comment #141228 by Wheeler on March 10, 2008 at 7:28 am

MPhil well I don't know very much about philosophy or science, forgive me if I assumed a position you don't hold.

I do understand that science does perscribe to such a veiw, but I think that since science is restricted to the natural and physical world by definition, it goes without saying that it doesn't apply to non-natural, non-physical things.

Also, I understand a priori to refer to logical tautological, and conceptual knowledge and truths, while a posteriori refers to experiential, and empiricle knowledge and truths. The difference between induction and deduction.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_priori_and_a_posteriori_(philosophy)

Am I wrong there?

You are right though, I definitely don't have an intimate knowledge of philosophy, but was I wrong in stating that there are positions that don't accept those views that you implied with necessary or plain givens?

Other Comments by Wheeler

48. Comment #141231 by Wheeler on March 10, 2008 at 7:32 am

You're right Roland, I did contradict my allusion to Anslem in a previous post...damn. It's hard to keep track.

I will say to Steve, before I accept defeat from MPhil, as he/she is sure to crash me in their next reply, that we don't know how or why the physical laws obtain in the future either, we just know that they have in the past.

That objection works equal well for believing that the past gives an indication of what will happen in the future.

I am not as good a sophist as I thought. I admit defeat. I was beginning to run out of steam anyway.

Other Comments by Wheeler

49. Comment #141233 by Wheeler on March 10, 2008 at 7:35 am

That is not a study of supernatural things though. That is the study of people. We can test claims that proport to effect the physical world, if the claim involves testable and predictable situtations. Which isn't the same thing as testing supernatural and non-physical things.

Other Comments by Wheeler

50. Comment #141240 by Wheeler on March 10, 2008 at 7:41 am

Yeah, I didn't think that would get by you...

Other Comments by Wheeler