Freakin Kaspersky- The Russian Anti-Virus Internet Security

alexCCCP-RUS-54321 wrote:

Tyrong Kojy wrote:

Quote :

Do you guys admit that god is a serious possibility?

SERIOUS possibility? No, not in the slightest. LAZY possibility? Yeah, sure.

Quote :

That's a big leap for apemen everywhere!

You shouldn't be talking, evolution denier.

I deny eveloution? Wow, just, just, wow...

You're the one who's said it can't work. You're the one who's asked me for evidence of evolution. You in fact have NEVER give an indication youa accept it. You've said a couple times you DO, but it's confusing becausethis is often soon after we point out that you're a denyer, just after you ask something like I said up there.

CoolKidX wrote:

best argument so far.

alexCCCP-RUS-54321 wrote:

Do you guys admit that god is a serious possibility? ND CKX's family should be proud of him, he knows 1000 is more than 900! That's a big leap for apemen everywhere!

..right.. you know what internets meme's are? Grow up and you may control them instead of sending me random PM's of being in the "hood".

Also, I cant seem to edit my post apove Tyrlop's one, it goes still blank for some crazy ass reason.

Tyrlop wrote:

CoolKidX wrote:

best argument so far.

ROFL

Im not even gonna warn you Alex, (for the two violations you did, 1.) Double Post 2.) "Attempting" a direct insult towards CKX

Id much rather have you stay and continue to argue.

I agree with Liche.

Seriously alex, dont double post, you can put them together ya know.

Don't go after him. I;ve done it a few times, too.

Tyrong Kojy wrote:

Don't go after him. I;ve done it a few times, too.

But you stopped right?
I dont care if someone double post because he may not know how to mix their posts. But after a while its like "You should know by now, if not, ask".

i though it was his first?
anyway i missed half, what is the argument about now
since god is alraedy exhuasted

ORIGINALLY he claimed to have proof of God's existance that he thought would convince Richard Dawkins, but his e-mail was deleted. I was curious, but incredulous, so I asked. Let's just say that the first arguments that he gave were... poor. And, while he has claimed to have "much" more, since then it's mostly been questioning the validity of evolution, which led to me calling him an evolution denyer, and otherwise has been ENTIRELY "what was the first cause?" Which even IF it was a deity, as I have said MANY times before it COULD be, that in no way means such a deity doesn't require a begining, a CREATOR, itself. As I have said to him many, many times. It was also continued in PMs a bit, but it wasn't anything new. It was mainly me repeating everything I've said here already, several times.

Don't forget the oscillating universe loop, Tyrong.

Tyrong Kojy wrote:

ORIGINALLY he claimed to have proof of God's existance that he thought would convince Richard Dawkins, but his e-mail was deleted. .

Isnt it clear yet? He dodges everything what you say, makes lame excuses like that, his e-mail got deleted... are you kidding, and ofcourse his computer cant run SOME threads but the site he can, and ofcourse other threads, or in reality, he doesnt want to post in your discussion thread with him cuz he know he will fail, if not, it will turn out like it. Unless... alex.. is... GOD/ALLAH/JEHOVAH~~!

Quote :

Don't forget the oscillating universe loop, Tyrong.

I'd prefer it if I could.

enviro wrote:

satan is a cool felloww
cuz he doesnt exist
i have lost all respect for alex

Attempted inuslt

CoolKidX wrote:

Tyrong Kojy wrote:

ORIGINALLY he claimed to have proof of God's existance that he thought would convince Richard Dawkins, but his e-mail was deleted. .

Isnt it clear yet? He dodges everything what you say, makes lame excuses like that, his e-mail got deleted... are you kidding, and ofcourse his computer cant run SOME threads but the site he can, and ofcourse other threads, or in reality, he doesnt want to post in your discussion thread with him cuz he know he will fail, if not, it will turn out like it. Unless... alex.. is... GOD/ALLAH/JEHOVAH~~!

You have not posted anything that is actually contridicting anything I have said. All you have said are insults, and things that have no relevance at all? What kind of freaking argument are you Making, to disprove God?

CoolKidX wrote:

I agree with Liche.

Seriously alex, dont double post, you can put them together ya know.

Relevance to disprove God?

CoolKidX wrote:

enviro wrote:

i have lost all respect for alex

We've been there lol.

attempted insult
And you're blaming me Liche, for an attemted insult?
Let me ask you a question:
What created the universe? Let's pretend we're detectives, and like teh greatst detective of all times once said " When you remove teh impossible, whatever is left, howver imporbibale, must be the truth"
So, based on this prinicple:
We know teh oscilliting universe theory is most liekly impossible
We know that the big bang theory has flaws that most likely, if not definitly, make it impossible
We know that God is not impossible. So, when we remove what is impossible, what is left?
Don't ask me for all teh questions about God, becasue there are people out there, astrophysysits out there, who know much more than me about God, and are Christians, who could answer your questions. And what right do you have to say that God is improbobale, when you have no theory for yourselves for teh creation of the universe?

enviro wrote:

once again WHERE IS YOUR PROOF
its possible, but highly unlikely
god isnt meant to be in science, you cant just point and say
god makes the water in plants move up
god has no place in science or in the world

If God did create the unverse, that meant he had had to create science, no?

Quote :

What created the universe? Let's pretend we're detectives, and like teh greatst detective of all times once said " When you remove teh impossible, whatever is left, howver imporbibale, must be the truth"

Once mor, he can't be the greatest detective if he never actally existed. By that note, then the greatest warrior ever to exist was Aragorn of Gondor.

Quote :

We know teh oscilliting universe theory is most liekly impossible

Nooooo..... It's just that it okos like the wrong one right now. It's not most likely impossible, it's simply, from what we can tell right now, the wrong one. Plain and simple. And I NEVER said otherwise.

Quote :

We know that the big bang theory has flaws that most likely, if not definitly, make it impossible

You've never actually given arguments against the big bang, ony against an oscilating universe. So no.

Quote :

We know that God is not impossible. So, when we remove what is impossible, what is left?

A Flying Spaghetti Monster.

Quote :

Don't ask me for all teh questions about God, becasue there are people out there, astrophysysits out there, who know much more than me about God, and are Christians, who could answer your questions.

You're the one who claims straight As and even had proof that would INSTANTLY convince biologist Richard Dawkins. I think by that claim alone you're qualified to answer ANY question I ask. And no, those guys aren't. No more than any other theist I have ever talked to. You have yet to bring up one single point that I have not already heard. Still.

Quote :

And what right do you have to say that God is improbobale, when you have no theory for yourselves for teh creation of the universe?

Go back. Read my lists of gods. They have ALL failed the tet of their existance. Thus I see no reason to give the deist god the benifit of the doubt. And since its peers have all failed, by default he does too, simply by assosiation. He wasted to not be, then he could do something about it. But he does not. Or rather, it.

alexCCCP-RUS-54321 wrote:

]You have not posted anything that is actually contridicting anything I have said. All you have said are insults, and things that have no relevance at all? What kind of freaking argument are you Making, to disprove God?

When I see posts here I reply to some, and its obvious you dodge things, so with that I make people clear that is.

alexCCCP-RUS-54321 wrote:

CoolKidX wrote:

I agree with Liche.

Seriously alex, dont double post, you can put them together ya know.

Relevance to disprove God?

It feels its the only way to make you realize YET! You still double post, omfg, just make one like I do and Tyrong and all the others.

alexCCCP-RUS-54321 wrote:

attempted insult
And you're blaming me Liche, for an attemted insult?
Let me ask you a question:
What created the universe? Let's pretend we're detectives, and like teh greatst detective of all times once said " When you remove teh impossible, whatever is left, howver imporbibale, must be the truth"
So, based on this prinicple:
We know teh oscilliting universe theory is most liekly impossible
We know that the big bang theory has flaws that most likely, if not definitly, make it impossible
We know that God is not impossible. So, when we remove what is impossible, what is left?
Don't ask me for all teh questions about God, becasue there are people out there, astrophysysits out there, who know much more than me about God, and are Christians, who could answer your questions. And what right do you have to say that God is improbobale, when you have no theory for yourselves for teh creation of the universe?

I have my theary, the big bang for example, and I pretty much agree with what Tyrong says, I am just clearing up what you are and what you do.

And this is funny, look.

Me wrote:

We've been there lol.

alexCCCp-RUS-54321 wrote:

attempted insult

FAIL
Do you even know what a insult is?
Are you kidding me? You just says attempted insult at everyone to take them back cuz Liche got you with that.
Its like back some months, you didnt know what spam and trolling is, and now attempted insult? Go study some things about that first .

CoolKidX wrote:

alexCCCP-RUS-54321 wrote:

]You have not posted anything that is actually contridicting anything I have said. All you have said are insults, and things that have no relevance at all? What kind of freaking argument are you Making, to disprove God?

When I see posts here I reply to some, and its obvious you dodge things, so with that I make people clear that is.

alexCCCP-RUS-54321 wrote:

CoolKidX wrote:

I agree with Liche.

Seriously alex, dont double post, you can put them together ya know.

Relevance to disprove God?

It feels its the only way to make you realize YET! You still double post, omfg, just make one like I do and Tyrong and all the others.

alexCCCP-RUS-54321 wrote:

attempted insult
And you're blaming me Liche, for an attemted insult?
Let me ask you a question:
What created the universe? Let's pretend we're detectives, and like teh greatst detective of all times once said " When you remove teh impossible, whatever is left, howver imporbibale, must be the truth"
So, based on this prinicple:
We know teh oscilliting universe theory is most liekly impossible
We know that the big bang theory has flaws that most likely, if not definitly, make it impossible
We know that God is not impossible. So, when we remove what is impossible, what is left?
Don't ask me for all teh questions about God, becasue there are people out there, astrophysysits out there, who know much more than me about God, and are Christians, who could answer your questions. And what right do you have to say that God is improbobale, when you have no theory for yourselves for teh creation of the universe?

I have my theary, the big bang for example, and I pretty much agree with what Tyrong says, I am just clearing up what you are and what you do.

And this is funny, look.

Me wrote:

We've been there lol.

alexCCCp-RUS-54321 wrote:

attempted insult

FAIL
Do you even know what a insult is?
Are you kidding me? You just says attempted insult at everyone to take them back cuz Liche got you with that.
Its like back some months, you didnt know what spam and trolling is, and now attempted insult? Go study some things about that first .

What was the purpose of you saying "Wev'e been there lol." What does it accomplish? And So if I show the problems with the big bang, YOU will answer them, ok? Becasue you obviously know so much about this. Becasue you hvae not provided any arguemnt against me taht wasn't agreeing with people or saying: I belive in teh big bang. Now, I will expect YOU and YOU alone, first to answer these supposed flaws with the big bnag. And if you ask Tyrong for help, I beg you Tyrong to not help him. Please.
And so: The Big Bang Theory has some significant problems. First of all, the Big Bang Theory does not address the question: "Where did everything come from?" Can nothing explode? This contradicts to the 1st Law of Thermodynamics (the Law of Conservation of Matter). Where did Space, Time, Matter, and Energy come from? Next, how did this explosion / "expansion" cause order while every explosion ever observed and documented in history caused only disorder and chaos? Consequently, the Big Bang seemingly violates the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics (the Law of Increased Entropy). What organized the universe after the singularity?

Besides conflicting with the 1st and 2nd Laws of Thermodynamics, the Big Bang Theory contradicts the Law of Conservation of Angular Momentum. For example, how does the Big Bang Theory explain "Retrograde Motion" (the backward spin of some planets and the backward orbits of some moons) without violating the Law of Conservation of Angular Momentum?

Everything in the universe is spinning - planets, stars, galaxies, etc. It would take an enormous amount of energy to start a planet spinning. To solve this, advocates of the Big Bang Theory claim that the singularity that blew up in a sudden big bang was spinning before it exploded, thus everything within it was spinning as it flung out. The problem is Venus, Uranus, and Pluto are spinning backwards (Retrograde Motion). If something spinning clockwise blows up, all of the pieces will be spinning clockwise (the Law of Conservation of Angular Momentum). The Big Bang explains Retrograde Motion as cosmic impacts on planets that have stopped and then reversed the spin. This is not acceptable, since many small impacts would be largely self-defeating, and the force of impact necessary to stop and reverse the spin of a planet all at once is incredible, so much so it would certainly leave a mark -- probably take a huge chunk out of the planet! At the very least, it would upset the orbit. Yet Venus has a retrograde spin and is nearly flawless in both its shape and orbit.

Besides the significant problem of retrograde spin, some natural satellites have a retrograde orbit around their planet. Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune have satellites orbiting in both directions. Once again, how can Big Bang cosmologists solve this dilemma without violating the Law of Conservation of Angular Momentum?

Also, the Big Bang Theory contradicts observed phenomena. For example, the Big Bang Theory is unable to explain uneven distribution of matter throughout the universe resulting in galactic "voids" and "clumps". If the Big Bang was true, all matter would be (roughly) evenly distributed.

In the universe, there are too many “large scale structures” to form in a time as short as 10-20 billion years, as suggested by the Big Bang Theory. Also, when observing globular clusters (groups of tens of thousands, to one million stars), they appear older than the universe, which falsifies the Big Bang Theoyr.

And know, I ask you, how much common sense much you have to say that everything in this vast universe grew out of a region many billions of times smaller than a single proton, one of the atom’s basic particles. Wouldn't that be amazing! ANd where would this cosmic egg come from? It could just "be there"?

And I uess that's enough for now. And if you say that you you never you said you could answer tis stuff or some shit, you will truly be a ******************************bucket of**************************. Why? Becasue you have been insulting m, saying that I am dodging questions, and pretending that you are specialist as all of this? How do I know this? Becasue you can say all of you have lost all respect for me when you can't even back yourself up!! Now, I ask you the asme question. What right do you have to say that to me? Answer all of the things I have shown you, becasue you obviously think you are better. So now I wanna see if you can actually prove so. Remember, answer all of this stuff, and then we'll see how empty your words actually are. Becasue all you have done to actually agree with pople, and say " the big bang did it!!"

Tyrong Kojy wrote:

Quote :

What created the universe? Let's pretend we're detectives, and like teh greatst detective of all times once said " When you remove teh impossible, whatever is left, howver imporbibale, must be the truth"

Once mor, he can't be the greatest detective if he never actally existed. By that note, then the greatest warrior ever to exist was Aragorn of Gondor.

Quote :

We know teh oscilliting universe theory is most liekly impossible

Nooooo..... It's just that it okos like the wrong one right now. It's not most likely impossible, it's simply, from what we can tell right now, the wrong one. Plain and simple. And I NEVER said otherwise.

Quote :

We know that the big bang theory has flaws that most likely, if not definitly, make it impossible

You've never actually given arguments against the big bang, ony against an oscilating universe. So no.

Quote :

We know that God is not impossible. So, when we remove what is impossible, what is left?

A Flying Spaghetti Monster.

Quote :

Don't ask me for all teh questions about God, becasue there are people out there, astrophysysits out there, who know much more than me about God, and are Christians, who could answer your questions.

You're the one who claims straight As and even had proof that would INSTANTLY convince biologist Richard Dawkins. I think by that claim alone you're qualified to answer ANY question I ask. And no, those guys aren't. No more than any other theist I have ever talked to. You have yet to bring up one single point that I have not already heard. Still.

Quote :

And what right do you have to say that God is improbobale, when you have no theory for yourselves for teh creation of the universe?

Go back. Read my lists of gods. They have ALL failed the tet of their existance. Thus I see no reason to give the deist god the benifit of the doubt. And since its peers have all failed, by default he does too, simply by assosiation. He wasted to not be, then he could do something about it. But he does not. Or rather, it.

I am talking from a philosphicol point of view. Warriors are more physically compared. But I ask, does Sherlock's principle shine through? By saying God is a lazy option for the creation of the universe makes the option that whatever scientists have made up that hasn't been disproved yet even more. Eliminate the impossible, what's left, for now? God is. ANd I've been thinking about that thing with God maybe not helping teh starving Kids and shit. I can't explain why he does that. I can't speak for God. I'm trying to explain God as a serious cause for the universe.

and so, right now, scientist have no explanation for teh cause of th Universe. That makes them look real smart...

I just gave some reasons to CKX. Answer them please but only after he has. PLEASE. And don't help. I know you and Zealot are realy intelligent and I know you guys could asnwer them, but please, I want to see CKX... SHIT just spilled some water on my keyboard....

Pudding comes in more than two flavours. So does Spaghetti...

My memory has maybe faded a little but i said I was gonna email it to him, but it got deleted and I neer got around to restoring it, and now the files ben overwritten after deletion. Anways, I don't remember saying it was gonna convince entirely. And if I did, I take it back. Like you guys toke back your oscilliting universe theory.

And don;t say this is double posting, ebcasue I'm adressing two different people.

Tyrong Kojy wrote:

ORIGINALLY he claimed to have proof of God's existance that he thought would convince Richard Dawkins, but his e-mail was deleted. I was curious, but incredulous, so I asked. Let's just say that the first arguments that he gave were... poor. And, while he has claimed to have "much" more, since then it's mostly been questioning the validity of evolution, which led to me calling him an evolution denyer, and otherwise has been ENTIRELY "what was the first cause?" Which even IF it was a deity, as I have said MANY times before it COULD be, that in no way means such a deity doesn't require a begining, a CREATOR, itself. As I have said to him many, many times. It was also continued in PMs a bit, but it wasn't anything new. It was mainly me repeating everything I've said here already, several times.

I said evoloution as Darwin freaking explains it. WTF don;t you understand. Let's see: WE know Humans have evloved from apes, but what caused teh evoloution; how did it happen, and why so quickly.

God lives outside the realms of time and space, so he does not need to be created. HOW MANY TIMES TO I HAVE TO SAY IT?

Look: You guys have no theory for the creation of the universe
You guys have tried to explain that the universe had no begging
You guys have said the universe came from the bigbang, which I have said some stuff about. And my arguements were porr? And remember, at the beggining, I said that God could have easily caused the big bang to happen, it was him who caused it? Remember that as my main arguement? Well, it wasn't poor, I guess I was thinking along the lones of some great scientists: Arlie Hoover, a professor at Abilene University, has argued similarly:

It is entirely possible, though not at all firmly established, that God used a big bang as His method of creation. You cannot affirm it as a certainty, but neither can you deny it apodictically. Because the Bible does not specify how God did it, we are left to choose the hypothesis that seems to have the best supporting material . . . nothing in the biblical doctrine excludes the big bang (1992, 34, 35).

Let's try to refocus.
You have no explanation for the universe. God seems like a very serious choice, doesn;'t it?

Quote :

first to answer these supposed flaws with the big bnag.

What flaws? For the last time, what flaws?

Quote :

First of all, the Big Bang Theory does not address the question: "Where did everything come from?"

THIS is your problem? THIS!? I've adressed this. Magic mand done it does not explain where magic man came from, so in in fact answer nothing with that. GET IT THROUGH YOUR HEAD.

Quote :

Where did Space,

The expansionof matter created space.

Quote :

Time,

Arbitrary measurements given by us humans. Events will always progres, whether or not we're here. As it did before we got here. Please try to grasp that.

Quote :

Matter,

We don't know. As I';ve said before. Magic man done it... blah blah.

Quote :

and Energy come from?

Read above.

Quote :

Next, how did this explosion / "expansion" cause order while every explosion ever observed and documented in history caused only disorder and chaos?

One, as I have said, it's an expansion only. NOT EXPLOSION. THe term bang is used ot explain it to IDIOTS. Second, according to our current model of the unioverse, it is not a perfect sphere. It's pretty exlpodey like. BUT WAS NOT AN EXPLOSION!

Quote :

Consequently, the Big Bang seemingly violates the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics (the Law of Increased Entropy).

For now. As I have said,many times, there are a proposed 11 dimentions. There's likely a reason as to why the unoverse looks as it does. However it's not gaining energy from an outside force and is instead dying, so, uh, no it doesn't violate that law. So basically ignroe this whole point!

Quote :

What organized the universe after the singularity?

The universe is organised?

Quote :

how does the Big Bang Theory explain "Retrograde Motion"

I throw a rock at your head. Will it keep spinning in one direction, or will it change direction, with me laughing?

Quote :

It would take an enormous amount of energy to start a planet spinning.

Like, say, the collapse of a star?

Quote :

To solve this, advocates of the Big Bang Theory claim that the singularity that blew up in a sudden big bang was spinning before it exploded, thus everything within it was spinning as it flung out.

Sure. Whatever.

Quote :

The problem is Venus, Uranus, and Pluto are spinning backwards (Retrograde Motion).

Rock, head, funny.

Quote :

The Big Bang explains Retrograde Motion as cosmic impacts on planets that have stopped and then reversed the spin.

Then what the hell's the problem!?

Quote :

This is not acceptable, since many small impacts would be largely self-defeating, and the force of impact necessary to stop and reverse the spin of a planet all at once is incredible, so much so it would certainly leave a mark -- probably take a huge chunk out of the planet!

Do... do you not know what an asteroid is?

Quote :

Besides the significant problem of retrograde spin, some natural satellites have a retrograde orbit around their planet. Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune have satellites orbiting in both directions. Once again, how can Big Bang cosmologists solve this dilemma without violating the Law of Conservation of Angular Momentum?

You're not an A student. Most satelites are captured asteroids. Please stop embarassing yourself. I know you're young, but it wouldn't be so bad if you didn't constantly toot your own horn.

Quote :

Also, the Big Bang Theory contradicts observed phenomena. For example, the Big Bang Theory is unable to explain uneven distribution of matter throughout the universe resulting in galactic "voids" and "clumps". If the Big Bang was true, all matter would be (roughly) evenly distributed.

Why?

Quote :

In the universe, there are too many “large scale structures” to form in a time as short as 10-20 billion years, as suggested by the Big Bang Theory.

Actually, I agree. Which is why I think our measurement if time is off. Basically, it's measured based on the oldest light to reach us. Does that mean there is not still oder light traveling to us? Nope.

Quote :

Also, when observing globular clusters (groups of tens of thousands, to one million stars), they appear older than the universe, which falsifies the Big Bang Theoyr.

Uh... no they don't.

Quote :

And know, I ask you, how much common sense much you have to say that everything in this vast universe grew out of a region many billions of times smaller than a single proton, one of the atom’s basic particles. Wouldn't that be amazing! ANd where would this cosmic egg come from? It could just "be there"?

And know, I ask you, how much common sense much you have to say that a magic man poped out of nowhere to start all this?

Quote :

saying that I am dodging questions

You pretty much have been. or at least ignoring me.

Quote :

and pretending that you are specialist as all of this?

I never said that.

Quote :

Becasue you can say all of you have lost all respect for me when you can't even back yourself up!!

Actually I lost all respect for you when you said perfection of the solar system. And I can full well back myself up. You just haven't asked. ANd don't do something stupid like say "So give me something for everything you've typed". Because I will just insult you. In addition, you have barely touched all those vids I;ve sent, so once you get done with those, THEN we can talk.

Quote :

So now I wanna see if you can actually prove so.

He doesn't need to, because I have several times.

Quote :

I am talking from a philosphicol point of view.

To what!? TO DAMN WHAT?! TO DAMN WHAT!?

Quote :

Warriors are more physically compared.

Compared? To what? What are they compared to? At least ehre I know to what you are refering, but I still don't get what you're saying.

Quote :

But I ask, does Sherlock's principle shine through?

No actually, it doesn't. It CAN work quite often, yes. However, you need to understand something. See, it worked all the time in the books because they were WRITTEN AS SUCH. The premise does NOT always work!

Quote :

By saying God is a lazy option for the creation of the universe makes the option that whatever scientists have made up that hasn't been disproved yet even more.

No, i'm saying it doesn't explain where god came from, and thus doesn't explain ANY origins!

Quote :

Eliminate the impossible, what's left, for now? God is.

Wait, wait, wait, what makes the others impossible? Oscilating theory isn't the only one.

Quote :

ANd I've been thinking about that thing with God maybe not helping teh starving Kids and shit.

Oh, this will be good.

Quote :

I'm trying to explain God as a serious cause for the universe.

Only possibility is we don't know for sure at the moment, so it might be the deist god. Still not the cristian god. Keep trying.

Quote :

and so, right now, scientist have no explanation for teh cause of th Universe. That makes them look real smart...

.... I want to hurt you so much right now. Oscilating... not... only... THE STUPID! IT BURNS!

Quote :

I just gave some reasons to CKX. Answer them please but only after he has. PLEASE. And don't help.

Help? Help? I have ansewered most already. You're only asking because you want an ego boost, and want to see if HE knows. Which he can jsut find MY asnwers or Zeal's.

Quote :

SHIT just spilled some water on my keyboard....

Then... wipe it up? Don't type about it, wipe it up. Shit man, for an A student, you're not very wise.

Quote :

Pudding comes in more than two flavours. So does Spaghetti...

I... What? Are you refering to FSM? If so, then how?

Quote :

Anways, I don't remember saying it was gonna convince entirely.

You said "convince Richard Dawkins." SOund pretty simple to me.

Quote :

Like you guys toke back your oscilliting universe theory.

I... never.... Words can not describe how much I want to hurt you right now.

Quote :

And don;t say this is double posting, ebcasue I'm adressing two different people.

It is doble posting. Tripple posting, in fact.

Quote :

I said evoloution as Darwin freaking explains it.

Wait, are you meaning as it says in Origin Of Species? The book that's been out of date for 150 years?

Quote :

but what caused teh evoloution;

Mutation, natural selection> PRetty simple.

Quote :

how did it happen,

Uh... what exactly do you want here? Migration? Fossil records? ANd you'd better frelling quote me.

Quote :

and why so quickly.

We walked upright, freeing our hands, ate meat to enlarge our brains, and mastered fire. Go us.

Quote :

God lives outside the realms of time and space, so he does not need to be created. HOW MANY TIMES TO I HAVE TO SAY IT?

If you are unable to grasp how the universe could at one time have existed in antoher state outside time and space just like the god you are claiming, then you have no hope. If you're unable to grasp why even such a thing would itself need a creator just like the universe "NEEDS" a creator, then then you have no hope.

Quote :

Look: You guys have no theory for the creation of the universe

WE HAVE MANY! HURT YOU BAD!

Quote :

You guys have tried to explain that the universe had no begging

NO I DIDN'T! I tried to exlain a POSSIBILITY. And there's still amny others that allow it to not have a start. I was simply telling one that not only id not require a begining, but could continually continue throught time. STOP CONFUSING IT.

Quote :

You guys have said the universe came from the bigbang, which I have said some stuff about.

Not good stuff.

Quote :

And my arguements were porr?

Oh yeah.

Quote :

And remember, at the beggining, I said that God could have easily caused the big bang to happen,

And I have agreed. The DEIST god. You have failed miserably for the christian god.

Quote :

it was him who caused it?

What the hell are you trying to say in this part? Are you trying to make a statement?

Quote :

Arlie Hoover, a professor at Abilene University, has argued similarly:

It is entirely possible, though not at all firmly established, that God used a big bang as His method of creation. You cannot affirm it as a certainty, but neither can you deny it apodictically. Because the Bible does not specify how God did it, we are left to choose the hypothesis that seems to have the best supporting material . . . nothing in the biblical doctrine excludes the big bang (1992, 34, 35).

I have never said scientists could not be theists. In fact, 60% are. I admit it. Religion has an awfully nice hold on the mind, does it not? And um, since the bible says heaven is literally among the clouds, and the firmament is like a curtain drapped over Earth and that stars are holes looking into heaven, yes in fact it DOES count agains the big bang.

alexCCCP-RUS-54321 wrote:

What was the purpose of you saying "Wev'e been there lol." What does it accomplish?

To let other people know that I have been there.

alexCCCP-RUS-54321 wrote:

And So if I show the problems with the big bang, YOU will answer them, ok?

I wont, why? Because, you Alex, dont answer my posts, you begin good, but then its 90% off what I said, and this didnt happen the first time, no, this is one of the so many damn times, so you know what? I am not gonna argue about the big bang theroy with you, before you stop dodging, and now I will dodge your big bang stuff, becuz to let you know how it feels, to make a big post and realizing your not even gonna read half or reply to it. So no,plus, I see you have a have a hard conv with Tyrong, so you finish that, while I put your ass to trial since you still double post.

alexCCCP-RUS-54321 wrote:

Why? Becasue you have been insulting m,

Learn some god damn words, take my advice and learn what a insult is, what spam and trolling is. Cuz you do not know all of them.

alexCCCP-RUS-54321 wrote:

saying that I am dodging questions, and pretending that you are specialist as all of this?

I did not say I am a specialist of... idk, you didnt say in that quote.

alexCCCP-RUS-54321 wrote:

How do I know this?

You don't.

alexCCCP-RUS-54321 wrote:

Becasue you can say all of you have lost all respect for me when you can't even back yourself up!!

FAIL 2#(I am counting what fails you make)
First off, you never argued to me about thearies, only about you saying that I insult you and how I spam your MSN convs, and you later humoursly admitted that you were lying and you were the one who were spamming msn like a little annoying kid.
So back me up for what? I back me up when arguing between each other, you Sir, cant back yourself up, cuz you begin argueing back, but then... you begin a completely un-related conv. about dumb stuff the conv between us is not about.

alexCCCP-RUS-54321 wrote:

What right do you have to say that to me?

All the right, since this is a forum we cna all acces, dont like it? Leave.

alexCCCP-RUS-54321 wrote:

Answer all of the things I have shown you, becasue you obviously think you are better.

I wont, you wont, so I wont, I am pissed off makings posts you wont reply 100%, so you know what, I wont even reply to you about the shit you wrote. And where did I say I am better? Quote me please.

Oh and did you recieve my PM on making more posts into one? Try it out.

Also, epic quote

Tyrong Kojy wrote:

Help? Help? I have ansewered most already. You're only asking because you want an ego boost, and want to see if HE knows. Which he can jsut find MY asnwers or Zeal's.

I think its kinda true, as I have see you Alex, with a massive ego and all, no offense but its just true. I mean you seriously make a thread here of how you "beat" up a guy and ofcourse there were sooo many people who watched it, and it was in CAPS to. And in msn, you were the first time I met your ego about some hockey shirt or jacket from Russia or something, I thought you were joking, but after I found out you were not. So yeah, lose the ego. Just as a side-note.