| Back to our "debate". | |
|
|
Author | Message |
---|
Tyrong Kojy Member of the Supreme Council
Posts : 2142 Join date : 2008-04-11 Age : 37 Location : Canada
| Subject: Back to our "debate". Mon May 04, 2009 4:32 am | |
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Gy1e2olvMwAnd you still, actually, haven't answered back on my previous points yet that I gave in PMs, Alex. Who the fuck am I kidding? This isn't a debate. I've admitted before that a deist God is possible, certainly. It's just YOU'VE denied ANY possibility of things like this being right. ANY possibility. While still, (Ahem) not prooving your God, whether you call Him Jehova, Yaweh, Allah, etc. | |
|
| |
Liche Chairman of the Supreme Council
Posts : 4613 Join date : 2008-01-30 Age : 30 Location : USA-Virginia
| Subject: Re: Back to our "debate". Mon May 04, 2009 5:01 am | |
| That was a good video, it was also pretty simple so Im sure most (even Alex, jk just messing with you ) can understand. | |
|
| |
Zealot_Kommunizma Hero of the World Republic
Posts : 5413 Join date : 2007-12-06 Age : 35 Location : Mexico/Russia/Worl
| Subject: Re: Back to our "debate". Mon May 04, 2009 5:27 am | |
| Sing with the melody of the song "Pegasus Fantasy" from "Saint seya":
Alex won't come back, He's not eager anymore, To prove us that his god from the Bible does exist. Alex's gone for good, he's got no rebutal left, or a speck of proof for that matter. Alexander's arguements, have been rebutted once and more. He's seems to afraid to admit, his proveable defeat Creation, Kent Hovind's vile deception, Creation - believe this ludicrous lie, oh yeah. Creation, wicked faith's manipulation Lame lyrics, for this lame song, They're ok! | |
|
| |
CoolKidX Chairman of the Supreme Council
Posts : 4639 Join date : 2008-02-14 Location : Netherlands
| Subject: Re: Back to our "debate". Mon May 04, 2009 5:20 pm | |
| *claps*
Very good Zealot.
And yeah Tyrong, he won't be back, he isnt, Arnold Schwarzenegger! *drum thing* (oh wow lame joke amirite) | |
|
| |
Tyrong Kojy Member of the Supreme Council
Posts : 2142 Join date : 2008-04-11 Age : 37 Location : Canada
| Subject: Re: Back to our "debate". Mon May 04, 2009 7:37 pm | |
| I know, but I messaged him with the link, so MAYBE. | |
|
| |
Liche Chairman of the Supreme Council
Posts : 4613 Join date : 2008-01-30 Age : 30 Location : USA-Virginia
| Subject: Re: Back to our "debate". Mon May 04, 2009 11:39 pm | |
| I hope he'll atleast watch the video. If he comes on MSN tonight I'll send him the link. And yea, thats nice btw Zealot. | |
|
| |
Tyrong Kojy Member of the Supreme Council
Posts : 2142 Join date : 2008-04-11 Age : 37 Location : Canada
| Subject: Re: Back to our "debate". Tue May 05, 2009 2:28 am | |
| Well it turns out his parents have blocked the site. He's gone for good. Bummer. | |
|
| |
Liche Chairman of the Supreme Council
Posts : 4613 Join date : 2008-01-30 Age : 30 Location : USA-Virginia
| Subject: Re: Back to our "debate". Tue May 05, 2009 11:53 pm | |
| they didnt exactly block the site, just the site didnt match the content they want him to view. he can still listen to annoying Russian propeganda songs on youtube and barrage them at me. but I know for a fact his parents have parental controlls on his comp. | |
|
| |
CoolKidX Chairman of the Supreme Council
Posts : 4639 Join date : 2008-02-14 Location : Netherlands
| Subject: Re: Back to our "debate". Wed May 06, 2009 12:51 am | |
|
Last edited by CoolKidX on Wed May 06, 2009 4:48 pm; edited 1 time in total | |
|
| |
Tyrong Kojy Member of the Supreme Council
Posts : 2142 Join date : 2008-04-11 Age : 37 Location : Canada
| Subject: Re: Back to our "debate". Wed May 06, 2009 4:12 am | |
| - Quote :
- It's not like I don't want to come, it's that I can't. After I finish my science project, I MIGHT be able to squeaze in some time to debate with you. Anyways, I'll just say something quick about soem flaws with oscilliting universe theory: Most recent evdience points to teh universe being an open, ever-exapanding universe; not closed and consequently will expand forever. Another reason is that this theory ignores the second law of thermodynamics, which requires usable energy to continually decrease and for the universe to become more random and disorganized. A third reason is that it really doesn’t provide for an explanation of the initial creation; rather, it only pushes it back further in time. All scientists agree that there was an instant of creation, a start of the universe. ( Tyrong, I hope you still have the quotes of the scientists). Just answer this forst, and then we will coninue. Post in the thread as well please, I want to see their explanations, although I think your response will be more intelligent than theirs, or at least, most of theirs.
From Alex through PM. yeah, there are flaws, many of which I have recently seen. Great. Your point? I never said it was the ONLY one, I said it's a possibility. As for the start of the universe, bloody hell, man, why do you not understand what I've been explaining for the concept of time. We place a "begining" because 1) our limited brains need a limit on things in order to grasp them. Why do you think we use BCE and CE? The universe doesn't care what measurements WE place on time. 2) As for the "begining", they mean in it's current state. AS I have said MANY times before, it's possible it existed in a PREVIOUS state. 3) I agree this says nothing about the actual ORIGIN, however neither do you. "God did it" only pushes the begining back ITSELF. Where did God come from? And don't say God is eternal, because there is no difference there between saying God is eternal, and the universe, in some state, is eternal! I'll be sending him this, and all your repsonces, through PM. Yeah.... And dude, I know I sent you the youtube link. PLEASE watch it. If you need it again, just ask. I'm typing this here so I don't forget later. | |
|
| |
CoolKidX Chairman of the Supreme Council
Posts : 4639 Join date : 2008-02-14 Location : Netherlands
| Subject: Re: Back to our "debate". Wed May 06, 2009 4:48 pm | |
| Lol he dodges much, tryong to sound bissy and all to not debate you . | |
|
| |
Sponsored content
| Subject: Re: Back to our "debate". | |
| |
|
| |
| Back to our "debate". | |
|