- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Apologies in advance to mods and all for bringing other forums into discussion, a bit discourteous of me really.
BD
You wrote here http://www.booktalk.org/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=697&view=previous
I have taught atheist to understand and believe in God.
Perhaps you can tell us how many atheists you have “taught to understand and believe god” in these fora:
http://forum.richarddawkins.net/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=3748
http://atheistforums.org/thread-471.html?highlight=bodhitharta
(That’s the one where some atheists got hold of your simplistic nonsense and you mysteriously decided not to reply to their responses. I guess they WON THAT DEBATE, right?)http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum….?page=3
(Here a respondent to you writes “You don't pay attention to what you say, don't you? Just look at how you were trying to define atheist and then you say that if an atheist talks about the Bible (even if he criticizes it) he's not an atheist.” That sounds awfully familiar!!)http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forum….sg18051
Give us the number of your atheist converts in those places BD. I’ll lay money it is an integer less than one.
Stuart
The point of this thread is to share the experience of 'debating' someone who has no understanding of epistemology, claims a logical line of reasoning when actually there is none, and tends to just ignore good responses or change the subject.
BD has spread his mission far and wide it seems, and while that is not particularly relevant, it is interesting to see that we are not alone in our responses to him.
Perhpas BD might address some of these issues too!
Stuart
Quote (Stu @ Feb. 06 2010,12:35) Apologies in advance to mods and all for bringing other forums into discussion, a bit discourteous of me really. BD
You wrote here http://www.booktalk.org/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=697&view=previous
I have taught atheist to understand and believe in God.
Perhaps you can tell us how many atheists you have “taught to understand and believe god” in these fora:
http://forum.richarddawkins.net/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=3748
http://atheistforums.org/thread-471.html?highlight=bodhitharta
(That’s the one where some atheists got hold of your simplistic nonsense and you mysteriously decided not to reply to their responses. I guess they WON THAT DEBATE, right?)http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum….?page=3
(Here a respondent to you writes “You don't pay attention to what you say, don't you? Just look at how you were trying to define atheist and then you say that if an atheist talks about the Bible (even if he criticizes it) he's not an atheist.” That sounds awfully familiar!!)http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forum….sg18051
Give us the number of your atheist converts in those places BD. I’ll lay money it is an integer less than one.
Stuart
Atheist do not believe in Absolute Truth and Hypocrites dont practice Absolute Truth. If you don't practice what you claim you are practicing a non-truth and that would make you a non-believer of the truth you claim.and there has been about 3 atheists that have come around to understanding
BD entered the atheist's Lion's Den (if that is not too much of a contorted metaphor) and there were not many atheists thinking about god as a result of his presence there.
One plucky person reviewed some of his book:
http://forum.richarddawkins.net/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=14914
It seems that BD has claimed that his writing is divinely-inspired, and if his naming of it's followers as “Asanas” (his first name, apparently) is serious, then it would seem that he is trying to start a cult. That would appear to be somewhat hypocritical when placed alongside his comments about cults being prohibited in islam.
I don't think I'm going too far in suggesting that our islamic friend might be of low intelligence and a bit unhinged. That is the conclusion over at RichardDawkins.net (all sturdy fellows stout and of sound judgment, I'm sure everyone would agree!)
Stuart
Afadly has a better track record of converting atheists. (That's what happens when you don't have editing rights).
BD's fatuous 'law' about sexual reproduction which he asserts all over YouTube is really a reconstituted, simplistic version of the well-disproved idea of 'irreducible complexity.
Here he ignores a one-line response that pretty much sums up why he is wrong, and blunders on regardless. I guess he must think it is too good an idea to allow a mere disproof of it to get in his way.
http://www.agnosticforums.com/showthread.php?t=187
And he calls OTHER people hypocritical.
Stuart
Quote (kejonn @ Feb. 06 2010,15:04) Afadly has a better track record of converting atheists. (That's what happens when you don't have editing rights).
Not bad! His statement:“For me, people who deny logic or cause & Effect are insane and I can not prove anything for that person”
…is the darkest of irony.
Stuart
Quote low intelligence and a bit unhinged stuart, i am sure your fellows might find me to be the same, how would you label me?
just curious
Quote (princess of the king @ Feb. 06 2010,15:31) Quote low intelligence and a bit unhinged stuart, i am sure your fellows might find me to be the same, how would you label me?
just curious
If you are, then you have not made it painfully obvious!And in any case I certainly would never point it out to a princess of a king.
Stuart
Quote (Stu @ Feb. 06 2010,14:25) But not on those sites, right? Stuart
Actually many more could be counted but I don't keep track of everyone I talk to. In-fact there has been at least 2 Atheist that I have just remembered that was converted in Person.One was a teenager and one was a the brother of a believer friend of mind. The teen took a few weeks to convert and the atheist who was the brother of the believer took over 18 months.
It is by no means an easy task but I will tell you that those people that are now believers are some of the most humble beautiful and sincere believers there are.
Imagine someone like yourself being convinced of God, If that day comes it will be a great day indeed.
This is why ED was talking about rock bottom because at that point you may be a little more manageable and capable of believeing. While I wish you to never be at rock bottom, That did help one of the older people to convert and the reason was, I asked him what was the most important thing in his life and he said his Job I said”You should have said God” he said “but you know I don't believe in God” I said “I know, I was hoping that changed” A few days or so later he got fired from his Job for something that wasn't even a big deal he just didn't smile at a customer and she complained that he was rude.
Well, That was the most important thing and now he didn't have anything according to him well as the months passed and I spent lots of time with him literally showing him all sorts of amazing things that God allowed me to show him he started saying he believes and I asked him the question again “What is the most impotant thing in your life” He said “God” I said “seriously?” he said “yea, I believe and understand” a few days or so later he got his old job back but in a better location and he smiles a lot more knowing he's never alone.
Quote (Stu @ Feb. 06 2010,15:02) BD entered the atheist's Lion's Den (if that is not too much of a contorted metaphor) and there were not many atheists thinking about god as a result of his presence there. One plucky person reviewed some of his book:
http://forum.richarddawkins.net/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=14914
It seems that BD has claimed that his writing is divinely-inspired, and if his naming of it's followers as “Asanas” (his first name, apparently) is serious, then it would seem that he is trying to start a cult. That would appear to be somewhat hypocritical when placed alongside his comments about cults being prohibited in islam.
I don't think I'm going too far in suggesting that our islamic friend might be of low intelligence and a bit unhinged. That is the conclusion over at RichardDawkins.net (all sturdy fellows stout and of sound judgment, I'm sure everyone would agree!)
Stuart
Wow! That's a good sign your digging in, you should also know that on the Dawkins site they banned me when I started explaining to them the same thing that I explained to you about the prerequisites of evolution being an already established organism that Metabolizes, Manages waste and replicates all without having to evolve and yet these are all the common functions of living organisms to this very day.They didn't ban me for anything spiritual they banned me because I stumped them scientifically. Look it up: at one point they tried to use a post that I forgot to put the link and call it plagerism although it was obviously an article which I told them where it came from. The fact is they were Stumped just like I stumped you with the Virgin Birth.
These guys were being pummeled by me with comments such as:
It is important for the teaching of children to know that scientist would often mask a skull to look a certain way that was primarily coming from the imagination of the scientist. Bones do not reflect hair and skin placement or texture, would you deny this?
It is important to know for example that Scientist have never created living matter out of non living matter. Ironically a lot of pepole don't realize that very important fact. Scientist have never created even 1 cell from non living matter.
In the words of Alexander Oparin who was an Atheist
“Unfortunately the origin of the cell remains a question that is actually the murkiest aspect of the whole theory of evolution”
That was from his book The origin of life p 196.
STU
the Nautilus has not undergone any evolution.
Is this true or false?
By the way something created it right, or was it here even when the earth wasn't formed?
Thanks for finding these gems for me, I almost forgot them, Stumping the dawkins crowd with gems like these got me banned.
The invertebrate species called Nautilus, which proliferates in the seas of today, is also found in abundance in fossil form in the Cambrian strata dating back 520 million years. Since the day of its creation, the Nautilus has not undergone any evolution.
Are you stumped too stuart?
See and Believe the Truth:
GENETIC MATHEMATICS human 100 %
chimpanzee 86.7 %
nematode 75 %That puts the Chimpanzee at
LESS than HALFWAY
between a Worm and Human!
And even more recently researchers found that about80% of the proteins in the human
and chimpanzee genomes are different.
This comparison is very significant because proteins are ultimately responsible for an organism’s anatomical, physiological, and behavioral characteristics. Therefore, a high degree of genetic similarity doesn’t necessarily mean that humans and chimpanzees are closely related organisms.
(reference: Galina Glazko, Vamsi Veeramachaneni, Masatoshi Nei and Wojciech Makalowski, “Eighty Percent of Proteins are Different between Humans and Chimpanzees,” Gene volume 346 14 February 2005, Pages 215-219 )On classifications:
If all things are related then there classifications are all abitrary, right?
You said “Whales are mammals, and not remotely fish.” if they are related wouldn't that make them “remotely fish”
———————–
Mammal doesn't equate to human, is that clear. The platypus is a tetrapod and a mammal but is clearly not human. A bat is not a tetrapod but is a mammal. Are you following all this?
Wake up and give up all the latin terms that confuse you into thinking you know more than others.
——————————————
Think carefully and realize that you are saying that the lower order of the apes survived and the Man has survived but all in between did not survive. The apes do not have any signifigant intelligence and the chimp has 35 million differences from a human so what you are saying is that the closer an ape gets to being a human the more likely he is to be extinct.
———————————————
No new genetic material can be added to DNA.
Trait changes result in re-arranging(recombination) the genetic code that is already present.
We do observe mutations, but they are a loss of information or a defective copy of information that damages the species.
Complex organisms have more information not less.
recombination does not add new information.
However even if such loss of information or defective copy were to occur there are duplicate genes that reinforces(backs up) the previous data
Ladies and Gentlemen it appears the game has ended.
Unless the UCA genome got information to change into other genomes and those genomes got information to change in to other genomes all with specific sets of NEW INSTRUCTIONS it couldn't have happened
New information added to DNA has never been observed in science.
————————-
Still want to debate Bodhitharta?
A whole page of strawmen, and not one single disproof of evolution by natural selection.
We don't have to debate you, you have defeated yourself.
Stuart
Quote (bodhitharta @ Feb. 07 2010,05:43) Quote (Stu @ Feb. 06 2010,14:25) But not on those sites, right? Stuart
Actually many more could be counted but I don't keep track of everyone I talk to. In-fact there has been at least 2 Atheist that I have just remembered that was converted in Person.
But not on those sites, right?Stuart
Quote (Stu @ Feb. 07 2010,07:02) Quote (bodhitharta @ Feb. 07 2010,05:43) Quote (Stu @ Feb. 06 2010,14:25) But not on those sites, right? Stuart
Actually many more could be counted but I don't keep track of everyone I talk to. In-fact there has been at least 2 Atheist that I have just remembered that was converted in Person.
But not on those sites, right?Stuart
As I have said, if I don't keep track how could I knw?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
