Comments by phasmagigas

151. [UPDATED] Venomous Snakes, Slippery Eels and Harun Yahya

Comment #219694 by phasmagigas on July 27, 2008 at 11:30 am

You shouldn't do this you know. Only theists post false dichotomies.

You should add at least one other possibility. How about - a fervent convert to a psychotic religion.

epeeist, funnily enough i was going to put a third 'or a normal person who just happened to join islam' but i didnt as I felt that was unfair, i have a 'hope' that religion cannot make 'normal' people do bad things, i hope to assume they would be have been bad anyway. there are plenty of people who are indoctrinated into or convert to islam who wouldnt harm a fly, however it seems the one present here is not of that disposition.

152. [UPDATED] Venomous Snakes, Slippery Eels and Harun Yahya

Comment #219690 by phasmagigas on July 27, 2008 at 11:24 am

i suppose its inevitable that websites such as this will attract the most fundamentalist and mentally unstable people.

its actually quite warming that there havent actually been that many, joe is probably the most toxic so far (well, as far as i can remmber) and of course the uber irony is that his mentality is precisely what sites like this are out to expose, so joe is actually doing a fine job of making a fool of himself, exposing what religion can do to a human child and perhaps embarrasing others of his faith.

153. [UPDATED] Venomous Snakes, Slippery Eels and Harun Yahya

Comment #219685 by phasmagigas on July 27, 2008 at 11:18 am

As a Muslim i know that the style i have used is not appropriate for propagating my Religion if i were dialoguing with sincere people who are out for the truth.
But you lot are certainly not sincere or objective and actually are bitter enemies of Islam too and hence the reason for the style i use on sites like these which are designed to provide misinformation and lies on Islam and Religion in general.

SO BE READY SOON FOR MORE LESSONS YOU WORMS

a psycho who just happens to be muslim or a muslim who just happens to be a psycho?

154. [UPDATED] Venomous Snakes, Slippery Eels and Harun Yahya

Comment #219668 by phasmagigas on July 27, 2008 at 11:07 am

joe.

nobodys listening, nobodys reading.

people here tend not to have the predisposition to accept medieval nonsense as worthwhile. If you are trying to convert people it would be more fruitful for you to troll a christian website or a jewish website or a scientologist website as there are people there who are predisposed to accept things as true without evidence, all you need do is show them your cut and pastings and you will get a few converts perhaps. actually you could find an individual with a similar disposition to your own and have a chat with him:

godhatesfags.com

fred phelps will agree with you on somethings but not on others, so its a good start for you, he will likely talk with you personally if you can impress him enough, you'll find him a particulary interesting character, in many ways hes very much like you so you should gfind that quite illuminating.

remember, nobody is listening to you here. i do hope the moderators stop you from posting, your posts are utterly worthless, they are not worth the bits they are written in.

155. A Holocaust Denier Hits Manhattan (And Hearts Hitchens)

Comment #219566 by phasmagigas on July 27, 2008 at 6:44 am

holocaust deniers i suppose are rtaher teh same as creationsist, they want something to be true or not true and twist evidence to fit.

to make denial a crime is absurd, i cannot understand that, no, not one bit. that law is utterly wrong. ifyou deny the holocaust thats your choice, it simply means that you shouldnt expect people to take you too seriously because of it.

156. Texas Fiction Science

Comment #218951 by phasmagigas on July 25, 2008 at 9:32 pm

if these weaknesses became part of the curriculum i would hope that science teachers would actually boycott those sections at the very least. if i were a teacher in that case i would have to do that, i couldnt knowingly present false information.

157. Texas Fiction Science

Comment #218950 by phasmagigas on July 25, 2008 at 9:29 pm

Information contained in the genetic code is just too mind-blowing to have come from anywhere but an intelligent creator.

when i hear banal shit like that i wonder if some childhood experience meant he just had to hang on to something, anything for safety, you wonder if his mum washed his penis for longer than he felt comfortable with or something.
i simply dont understand that mentality.

158. Richard Dawkins slaps creationists into the primordial soup

Comment #218948 by phasmagigas on July 25, 2008 at 9:17 pm

Do you think it is silly to try to prohibit rape, murder, slavery,

theres a difference between the intent in these situations, raping and killing somebody is not the same as encouraging somebody to drink (and then without your agreement as such) they run somebody over on the way home, sure a life is lost either way but its not equivalent. the man who cuts off a head is guilty the person in the same town who reads the koran and wont harm a fly is not.

no, im not persuaded by that.

prohibiting alcohol would be like trying to make people vegan, at the end of the day its about delaying the day of death, you die one way or another eventually. its odd that eating a good diet and not having a heart attack at say 55 probably means tyou might live til you are 74 andthen get some hideous cancer instead.

heres another: it would be like trying to ban sports because they lead to injuries and death.

159. Richard Dawkins slaps creationists into the primordial soup

Comment #218946 by phasmagigas on July 25, 2008 at 9:11 pm

Consider that for millions of years, our ancestors hardly ever went faster than they can run. Which isn't very fast. The human brain clearly did not evolve to handle much speed.

true.

im a carful driver (although im getting my bike serviced next week and starting to use that for some journeys, i also walk a lot, something that makes me very odd in these parts!) anyway, id say 9 times out of 10 when somebody else is driving me id say they do not 'get' the whole breaking distance thing, not by a long shot, the only reason they are not already dead is because they havent actually had to break hard behind anybody...yet. Id say on average american drivers are actually worse than ones in the UK, according to what ive experienced, burger in one hand, dog on lap and cell phone under jaw doesnt help either.

the other day a driver came on at me head on! i had to swerve to the left to avoid the car and she then freaking turned her right, right in front of me again.........into the bloody 'family christian store', i really should hev told her to start thinking more and praying less. she seemed utterly oblivious to what had happened.

160. Texas Fiction Science

Comment #218941 by phasmagigas on July 25, 2008 at 9:02 pm

heck, peole are going to be homeschooling their kids for the opposite reason they usually do so now.

161. Texas Fiction Science

Comment #218938 by phasmagigas on July 25, 2008 at 8:58 pm

And yet it appears that, all evidence to the contrary, evolution may still soon be taught in Texas as a weak theory. Since the SBOE has a near majority of anti-evolution members, the small problem of evolution actually being demonstrable scientific knowledge is only a political challenge to those who want schoolchildren taught otherwise.

its funny how some people want to look stupid, i think it makes them more popular or something.

'look out america, here comes the rest of the world to trounce you' coming soon......

162. Texas Fiction Science

Comment #218936 by phasmagigas on July 25, 2008 at 8:55 pm

First weakness: the fossil record. "There are gaps," said McLeroy, that do not include enough transitional forms of life to support evolution. Second, McLeroy says there has simply not been enough time on Earth for the minute changes required by evolution to have taken place. Thirdly, McLeroy says the incredible complexity of cells proves divine design. Information contained in the genetic code is just too mind-blowing to have come from anywhere but an intelligent creator. "Where did this information come from?" McLeroy mused. McLeroy would like to see these assertions and more taught in Texas biology classrooms.

what an absolute fucking dickhead. he doesnt even realise how stupid he looks saying this.

gaps and personal incredulity.

163. Richard Dawkins slaps creationists into the primordial soup

Comment #218929 by phasmagigas on July 25, 2008 at 8:32 pm

i suppose for many a working person across time the only release (even if only temporary)from the drudgery of life was/is to get drunk, i believe theres a positive correlation between doing the least stimulating jobs and drinking. think how harsh life mush be/have been in the past and in places now, only the anticipation of drowning in ale must have kept many a man standing through the week. my point, alcohol has perhaps fueled the industrial revolution just as much as coal.

164. Richard Dawkins slaps creationists into the primordial soup

Comment #218926 by phasmagigas on July 25, 2008 at 8:26 pm

roland

Prohibition can only work in a theocratic dictatorship like Saudi Arabia, I guess only very few addicts smuggle some alcohol and risking harsh penalties.
or the introduction of Sharia law in the UK as proposed from the Archbishop of Canterbury : 200 lashes for every drunken guy would be quite funny (for non Brit's) .

well yes, what i should have siad was something like 'without some full scale violent enforcement and i suppose in some parts of the worls that is how its done, now one wonders which place is better to live in?? the thing with the alcohol ban is that it goes hand in hand with other forms of prohibition and religious madness.

I notice the streets of singapore are virtually free of chewing gum on the pavemenst, not like britain, the pavements of small towns are covered in millions of white>grey blobs, in some cases bans are a good thing, chewing gum isnt really that thrilling anyway.

165. Richard Dawkins slaps creationists into the primordial soup

Comment #218925 by phasmagigas on July 25, 2008 at 8:20 pm

The analogy with alcohol is so obvious it could hardly be more perfect.

i wonder how refined sugar consumption affects the types of deaths of a given population?

166. Richard Dawkins slaps creationists into the primordial soup

Comment #218919 by phasmagigas on July 25, 2008 at 8:06 pm

Pulling your leg I've heard of. Mickey and piss, no. But, it's good to know just in case I end up down under sometime.

pulling your leg is more when you have a joke with somebody, taking the piss is more offensive, but it has several connotations depending upon how its said and in waht situation.

167. Richard Dawkins slaps creationists into the primordial soup

Comment #218917 by phasmagigas on July 25, 2008 at 8:04 pm

Is "takin the piss" a southern hemisphere thing? I haven't heard the phrase before in the U.S., but I'm also well past the age where I stay on top of things like this.

used widely in the UK lso.

168. Richard Dawkins slaps creationists into the primordial soup

Comment #218911 by phasmagigas on July 25, 2008 at 7:57 pm

roland.

At least in Germany the drink driving related accidents are more than 30% of accidents, whereas less than 5% of all travel is drink driving.
Means drunken drivers have a much higher chance of ending up in heavy accidents, so this is quite an argument for prohibition and punishment.

oh i understand whats being said, luckily for me my non theistic moral compass works quite well, if im driving i simply do not drink, not a drop. the whole prohibition thing, well its pretty obvious that that just isnt going to work, ever. trying to stop humans drinking alcohol would probably lead to more deaths than the accidents it causes. it would be almost as silly an idea as trying to prohibit sex. in fact it would be as silly as trying to prohibit religion!

169. Richard Dawkins slaps creationists into the primordial soup

Comment #218907 by phasmagigas on July 25, 2008 at 7:53 pm

I recommend Steven Pinker's "A Brief History of Violence" lecture on YouTube and TED for some historical perspective. It seems hard to believe, but we actually live in a world that is far less violent than the world of our ancestors.

some of us in some areas at some time are lucky enough to be rather 'civilised' apes, maybe its a kind of status symbol 'i have enough resources to not have to act like im desperate for them' as soon as people get short on resources or their status looks low they tend to start acting all apey again. Its one of thsoe things i'd expect to see if we had evolved from ape's, well that makes sense to me anyway.

170. Richard Dawkins slaps creationists into the primordial soup

Comment #218902 by phasmagigas on July 25, 2008 at 7:40 pm

He. Yea Poe's law applies here. Rafkin you must be a recent conversion to Atheism (I know we're not converted), because you took the hook line and sinker. I can't help myself. I concede.

hang on a minute, thats the whole point of poes law, you cannot distinguish parody from sheer nutcasery. scot did not fall for it anymore than anybody else unless there were some obvious clues in there.

actually we should have guessed, there wasnt enought capitals/anger in the posts.

171. Richard Dawkins slaps creationists into the primordial soup

Comment #218900 by phasmagigas on July 25, 2008 at 7:38 pm

teratornis

What is optional about getting mowed down by a drunk driver?

what is optional about getting mown down by a sober driver, do we need to be rid of cars?

172. Richard Dawkins slaps creationists into the primordial soup

Comment #218896 by phasmagigas on July 25, 2008 at 7:30 pm

That raises an interesting question. If this something is searching for thewhitepearl, why would she have to do anything to make herself easier for it to find? Even a human could find thewhitepearl. Presumably a supernatural entity could find her more easily.

?????

173. Richard Dawkins slaps creationists into the primordial soup

Comment #218890 by phasmagigas on July 25, 2008 at 7:20 pm

Also just look at the word: "EVIDENCE" Had to come from God.

ok, im saying satire.

174. Richard Dawkins slaps creationists into the primordial soup

Comment #218888 by phasmagigas on July 25, 2008 at 7:19 pm

scot, ive only read the last 2 of ca's posts and im really not sure, hmmm, its a tricky one is this. im thinking its a piss take.

175. Richard Dawkins slaps creationists into the primordial soup

Comment #218883 by phasmagigas on July 25, 2008 at 7:16 pm

Look at the trees, theres your evidence. Also flowers, new babies. People who get hit by cars and then get up. Lottery winners, Jesus coming back to show himself on toast, (or in my case in a bowl of alphabet soup: "Yo Jack, Jesus is real man!" My mother made me soup with punctuation.)

Umm what else....air wind fire water, everything. Except bad stuff, thats the devil. (we hate that guy)

ok, poes law.

176. Richard Dawkins slaps creationists into the primordial soup

Comment #218880 by phasmagigas on July 25, 2008 at 7:15 pm

I think I just trumped the entire scientific community. That is how sharp the Christian mind can be. Don't forget Newton, Bohr, and Gallelio and Capericus were all Christian.

this is said in jest right? asides had newton been born in the middle east hed probably have been islamic and accepted different things.

177. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #218341 by phasmagigas on July 25, 2008 at 9:22 am

txpiper.

heres a question and im going to push this until you give some kind of testable answer.

explain in non evolutionary terms why we share more of our DNA with chimps than with any other species, a bit less with lemurs, a bit less with dogs, a bit less with snakes, a bit less with goldfish, a bit less with sharks, a bit less with tunicates, a bit less with star fish, a bit less with dragonflies and even less with pine trees, why is this??

178. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #218296 by phasmagigas on July 25, 2008 at 7:08 am

And once again, nice try. But the problem is not what I dislike, or my lack of comprehension. The problem is that your theory, when it comes right down to it, is no more scientific or sophisticated than spontaneous generation. "Things just evolve".

no, thats the beauty of it, evolution is the first time an explanation has allowed people NOT to say 'things just'.

it gives a mechanism, one that can be tested, the ONLY time 'things just' is used is when the theistic mind starts basing their ideas on an old book and the desire to live forever.

just what is it with theists and equivocation? atheism etc is just a religion.......my shits just as bad as your shit. (actually is that correct, is that an equivocation????)

179. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #218294 by phasmagigas on July 25, 2008 at 7:04 am

No mention of mutations, DNA or anything like that. Just your own "evolution did it" magic

the explanations of whales migrating to follow squid work in an evolutionary framework, the dna bit could be looked at in time and used to see if the assumptions are unfounded or not, when and architect designs a building he/she doesnt have to describe how to set brick and mortar in the papers.

so whats your alternative, its not magic then?? you are a prick, evolution works precisely because its NOT magic.

180. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #218284 by phasmagigas on July 25, 2008 at 6:45 am

Absolutely not. This is beyond the scope of adaptations. Changes in teeth and fur is within that scope. Teeth accidentally changing into baleen over time is not.

what a clown, you cannot know that, and besides the fact you use the word 'accidentally' shows you know nought. argument from personal incredulity, it means zero.

181. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #218279 by phasmagigas on July 25, 2008 at 6:34 am

What it boils down to is acceptance of evolution because of atheism, not the other way around.

thats absolute nonsense, an individual can accept evolution and some type of god.

besides my atheism and acceptence of evolution were arrived at seperately. Its interesting that as i walk in my garden I see precisely the type of things id expect to see if evolution were true, i see prairie 'cup plants' that look like they are 'on their way' to carnivory as they trap insects in their water filled leaf bases. i see a beautiful huge moth stuck in a web being eaten by a tiny spider thats sucking its juice through a single leg, eek! I see a mosquito drill its proboscis into my arm in a second and fatten on blood, hopefully not passing a parasite ot two into me, and last year a mintis eating a huge grasshopper back end forward, tiny nibble by nibble, double eek. its all there for us too, in the last hour some happy 5 year old kid somewere in the world will have had her guts spilled onto her lap in a car accident, wondering what all that red shit is just before she dies.

not the type of thing id expect if nature were designed by a loving god. the theist can postulate what they want, when they want, thats why the enterprise is vacant: it was the fall, animals dont suffer, god is mysterious, god guided evolution, its all there to test the faith, blah, blah, blah.

182. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #218264 by phasmagigas on July 25, 2008 at 6:20 am

steve zara

Also, considering how successful science is, and how much it has revealed that has been beyond anything we could have possibly imagined, it seems terribly silly to pick up an inconsistent old book, and say "this is better than science".

put a theist in the middle of a desert and give them 2 options:

1) a bag with a cell phone, a compass, some dried rations and multi vitamins, a Global positioning device, water, a plastic sheet, a gun even.

2) a bag with a bible and a reminder to pray at every step.

183. Richard Dawkins slaps creationists into the primordial soup

Comment #217762 by phasmagigas on July 24, 2008 at 3:40 pm

Seriously though, if arguing for the sake of arguing keeps you out of heaven...then I'm sure that it will be spacious for all five people that get in.

yes, i suppose trolling an atheist site isnt quite in the same mortal sin category as wearing a condom!

184. Richard Dawkins slaps creationists into the primordial soup

Comment #217752 by phasmagigas on July 24, 2008 at 3:24 pm

robert, if you do some here to merely spoil the party as such i dont see how that tallies with your (i suppose)belief that one day you will be actually judged and enter or not a place called heaven.

in spirit you are here to argue for the sake of it, thats not a good thing surely?

what might your god think of that?

185. Richard Dawkins slaps creationists into the primordial soup

Comment #217734 by phasmagigas on July 24, 2008 at 3:09 pm

More of the latter, although I am glad when atheists recognize the anemic arguments of some of their fellows.

so really its not what you could call a positive reason is it, its not really the type of thing id expect a follower of allah to do.

186. Red hot enlightenment led me to believe in one fewer god

Comment #217731 by phasmagigas on July 24, 2008 at 3:04 pm

For an even better read, check out Bill Muehlenberg's response to this article:
http://www.billmuehlenberg.com/2008/07/23/889/

its funny reading that, its amazing reading something from a writer that just totally assumes that god is there, is the love, tending each, everywhere!!

ugh, i feel like throwing up when i hear the word 'biblical' used as a adjective (well, i think its an adjective anyway).

187. Richard Dawkins slaps creationists into the primordial soup

Comment #217713 by phasmagigas on July 24, 2008 at 2:51 pm

AAAAARGGGH! Bloody loud things!
I tried the Attenborugh thing of attracting them by clicking my fingers. Must have clisked wrongly - they moved away. And yes, lots of mantises. I encourage them into the house to keep the other bugs at bay :-) Haven't noticed wasps - except for the Asian one that builds a small nest.

haha, yes they are very loud, and they do sound like rain if there are enough of them and you are under the tree canopy, there are 2 main singers that i noticed, one does a kind of woody woodpecker laughing type sound, well it doesnt sound like a laugh but it follows the same 'ka,ka...ka,ka...k,k,k,k,k,k,k,k,...ka,ka..ka,ka...

anyway i digress.......

188. Richard Dawkins slaps creationists into the primordial soup

Comment #217706 by phasmagigas on July 24, 2008 at 2:45 pm

so robert, why do you actually want to argue, what do you wish to achieve, your position is final with you i suppose so your motive is to change minds or just invade the party as such

189. Richard Dawkins slaps creationists into the primordial soup

Comment #217702 by phasmagigas on July 24, 2008 at 2:43 pm

I'm in Auckland - north North Island. I believe it is sub tropical here, though the way I am shivering sometimes suggests otherwise. Other proper Kiwis may be able to correct me. Wellington is about 8 hours drive south, it is on the southern tip of North Island. I lived there a while, over the summer, so have no idea what winters are like.
WRT wetas, maybe they are bigger as you go south because of the cold? Just trying to remember body area and heat loss...
I have a back garden which is bush - native trees and ponga (I have been told the tree ferns I have are called). When it stops raining long enough for the ground to dry, I shall go exploring there to see what I can find. As it is, it seems to be a very good breeding ground for mosquitoes...

goldy, ah so you will have the AK tree weta, hemideina thoraica. i know auckland quite well, you will have most luck finding wetas on manukas with holes in the trunk at night. other favourite critters there were the south african mantis which is everywhere as you know, those very cool stick insects, seemingly rare these days maybe becasue of european wasp predation, anyway i wont go too OT, oh and the clapping cicadas, what a great summer noise!!

190. Richard Dawkins slaps creationists into the primordial soup

Comment #217691 by phasmagigas on July 24, 2008 at 2:34 pm

so robert, why do you actually want to argue, what do you wish to achieve, your position is final with you i suppose so your motive is to change minds or just invade the party as such

191. Richard Dawkins slaps creationists into the primordial soup

Comment #217687 by phasmagigas on July 24, 2008 at 2:32 pm

If you mean that huge bug that generally elicits a loud screa from the wife, yes. Well, think so - I'm not the best etymologist as yet :-)
http://www.janeresture.com/polynesia_myths/newzealand.htm
With music!

yes, those, oh and thats entomologist haha!

so you in the north or south island, im trying to figure if you have the 'auckland' or 'wellington' species. i think of the two common tree weta the wellington actually gets bigger than the northern one, i have seen them when i was in NZ, wow, they are freaking huge.

192. Richard Dawkins slaps creationists into the primordial soup

Comment #217677 by phasmagigas on July 24, 2008 at 2:22 pm

goldy, you get wetas locally? people seem to forget theres a good contender for the one true god down that way, the 'wetapunga' (the giant weta), doesnt that mean god of ugly things?

193. Richard Dawkins slaps creationists into the primordial soup

Comment #217673 by phasmagigas on July 24, 2008 at 2:20 pm

Arguments are productive, you are here for a mud-fight.

actually it does get more interesting when the more civil theists get on board, i seem to remeber one guy (revcort) who quickly realised he knew nothing about biology and admitted that quickly and went away to do some reading, good on him. I did find dianelos G very tiring though, i got the feeling that person was tryingto convince themselves more than anybody else.

seems a good proportion, maybe 8 in 10 who do come to troll start with

1)evo idiots, prove its not creation.

then goto

2)prove there is no god

3)hurling of bits of books

4)i will pray for you.

ive still not yet thought of a name for this invariable progression of events.

194. Richard Dawkins slaps creationists into the primordial soup

Comment #217662 by phasmagigas on July 24, 2008 at 2:10 pm

"why are you on these boards?"

To argue.

why would you want to do that? i dont agree with the general beliefs of say an islamic forum but i would never feel the need to go on there and argue with them despite the fact they would deem me fair game if i was for example a homosexual, i could rightly take issue with that and feel an argument was worthy.

195. Richard Dawkins slaps creationists into the primordial soup

Comment #217660 by phasmagigas on July 24, 2008 at 2:06 pm

robert.

let me ask you.

why are you on these boards?

Im here as it allows me to discuss things with like minded people (whatever that actually means), whoops, like minded baby devils.

196. Richard Dawkins slaps creationists into the primordial soup

Comment #217656 by phasmagigas on July 24, 2008 at 2:04 pm

It depends on the metric, of course, but in any event the "popularity" of a book does not imply quality. The Da Vinci Code is also quite "popular."

true. the bible is very popular apparently.

197. Richard Dawkins slaps creationists into the primordial soup

Comment #217563 by phasmagigas on July 24, 2008 at 12:38 pm

I promised not to mention the Swedish furniture pushers again. It is a token of respect for my ancestors.

i did bring some dyme/dime bars back to the usa this year, very nice indeed.

198. Richard Dawkins slaps creationists into the primordial soup

Comment #217554 by phasmagigas on July 24, 2008 at 12:32 pm

generally my non ability at maths is kind of frustrating, its like knowing there is another way of understanding the way numbers innteract and using them to describe real things, even having a mental construct of teh whole thing in ones head, but i simply dont have that. i do rememeber once seeing what i think was a quadratic equation (does it start a squared plus b squared ?)but drawn out as a square with areas partitioned off, and then it made sense, i imagine mathemeticians saw those images when they were even kids, without the prompts.

edit, erm, i see the equation started out as something else, i'll stick to watching grasshoppers!

199. Richard Dawkins slaps creationists into the primordial soup

Comment #217541 by phasmagigas on July 24, 2008 at 12:23 pm

mitchell gilks

At is why the more you ad hoc a hypothesis, the more it loses credibility.

can you explain that a bit more, im not sure what that actually means. thanks.

200. Richard Dawkins slaps creationists into the primordial soup

Comment #217540 by phasmagigas on July 24, 2008 at 12:21 pm

Robert, and I would also thank you to stop quoting formal logical forumlas. When you do so you are clearly not interested in being understood, but in obfucating, and shutting people up.

If your interest is in being as unintelligible as possible, then there is no reason to respond to you.

this is a bit like a 10 year old asking me how many species of grasshopper are there living in his backyard and i say to him 'well young man, it all depends on what you mean by the word 'species' doesnt it'.

i guess its all about deception, if RoB cant offer any decent proof of allah then throwing out formulas must be the next best thing, i dont understand mathematics, in fact i dont know what that formula even means (im really shit at maths, in fact its like im trying to read japanese and i know none of that either) but what i do know is that that formula does not in any way shape or form offer any evidence for allah.