The Devil will not come to earth in this silly and laughable costume. When the Devil begins his earthly reign, he will masquerade as an "Angel of Light". It will be an ordinary looking man but with extraordinary powers. The antichrist will rise with signs and wonders and will deceive many. One of the biggest tricks the Devil has been playing on people is regarding his identity. He doesn't want you to know who he "is". It would require honesty, something the Devil is incapable of extending.
Hmmm, well, you might as well "'eat babies" professor, you condone by fiat,(since you obviously believe there's no Truth or basis for right and wrong) the murder of the unborn innoncent(abortion) in the name of convienience.
« since you obviously believe there's no Truth or basis for right and wrong »
For the record: I do believe in right and wrong. It is you who doesn't. You are the one who believes that might makes right, and that everything your imaginary friend wants according to your doctrine must therefore be right. I abhor your disregard and disrespect for the human condition and human dignity.
Yes, rhetorical questions, in the hope of catching somebody out on a lack of knowledge - and as soon as somebody says "I don't know" you would have jumped in and said "see! god did it after all!"
But of course in science it's okay to don't know yet. It's a starting point for asking questions - no, not your kind of questions: the kind of questions you don't think you know the answer to yet. Questions like "hm, I wonder what caused that?" (and not: "hm, I wonder how I can convince people that god caused that")
« Sorry ,but experiments in labs with chemical mixtures making amino acids are not "proof" that life sponteaneously generated all by itself! »
(1/5)
I guess I'm going to have to explain the difference between proof and evidence again. Sigh. Here goes:
In the natural sciences, proof is not the same as evidence. Proof is something with 100% certitude; the kind of certitude we can only achieve in formal logic or mathematics.
« Sorry ,but experiments in labs with chemical mixtures making amino acids are not "proof" that life sponteaneously generated all by itself! »
(2/5)
The natural sciences don't produce that kind of certitude: we approximate objective reality to models that are more or less accurate. The more observations are explained by the model, the more accurate its predictions are.
« Sorry ,but experiments in labs with chemical mixtures making amino acids are not "proof" that life sponteaneously generated all by itself! »
(3/5)
We don't know such a model is "the truth" and we can never know. But as long as it more or less accurately predicts our observations, we accept it as a reliable working model.
« Sorry ,but experiments in labs with chemical mixtures making amino acids are not "proof" that life sponteaneously generated all by itself! »
(4/5)
As I already explained, there are several models currently being tested for the origin of life. We don't really know which of these models, if any, is the most accurate, because we don't have enough data yet.
« Sorry ,but experiments in labs with chemical mixtures making amino acids are not "proof" that life sponteaneously generated all by itself! »
(5/5)
But in coming up with testable models, we only have our knowledge of the world to go by. Science does not comment on the supernatural, because it cannot be tested. Chemical reactions and genetic developments can.
« So what's the REAL reason, professor, you and your "educated" bretheren want to "prove" evolution so badly? »
(1/2)
Okay, aside from the whole proof vs. evidence thing I've just explained, I personally have no great need to throw in my puny weight with the scientists that work with and on evolutionary theory: they've managed quite well without me for the past 50 or so years.
« So what's the REAL reason, professor, you and your "educated" bretheren want to "prove" evolution so badly? »
(2/2)
I *am* however quite miffed sometimes at the fervor with which you and your ilk deny reality in favor of a book of myths; and I'm not afraid of speaking my mind about that.
« Objective science? I doubt it! Its a WORLDVIEW »
You. Yeah, you there. First, go study scientific methodology. Learn what the scientific method is. Then study what we sofar know of evolution, and how we got to know it. Then tell me exactly where the scientists involved deviated from the steps and principles outlined in the scientific method. Chop chop.
BLASPHEMER!! everyone knows that you should drink the blood, but if you marinate the baby in goats milk and then pulp together a mix of virgin blood and crows eyes then it is acceptable.
(I wonder if any Christian who reads this is going to call their priest or anything like that)
Well...congratulations on making it up to 33 or 34 degree Freemason.
DaughterofJerusalem 6 months ago
@DaughterofJerusalem
« Well...congratulations on making it up to 33 or 34 degree Freemason. »
Thanks!
XGralgrathor 6 months ago
Same here, I'm glad that I'm not alone.
Ponjoe15 1 year ago
The Devil will not come to earth in this silly and laughable costume. When the Devil begins his earthly reign, he will masquerade as an "Angel of Light". It will be an ordinary looking man but with extraordinary powers. The antichrist will rise with signs and wonders and will deceive many. One of the biggest tricks the Devil has been playing on people is regarding his identity. He doesn't want you to know who he "is". It would require honesty, something the Devil is incapable of extending.
121jigawatts 2 years ago
Really? Gosh. So how do you *know* all that, then?
XGralgrathor 2 years ago
...cause the Bible tells me so! :D!!
121jigawatts 2 years ago
« cause the Bible tells me so! »
Well, that really says it all then, doesn't it? ;)
XGralgrathor 2 years ago
You and me both, brother.
Let's get out the BBQ and roast a toddler!
BoneySkylord 2 years ago
Hmmm, well, you might as well "'eat babies" professor, you condone by fiat,(since you obviously believe there's no Truth or basis for right and wrong) the murder of the unborn innoncent(abortion) in the name of convienience.
Navyvet04 2 years ago
« since you obviously believe there's no Truth or basis for right and wrong »
For the record: I do believe in right and wrong. It is you who doesn't. You are the one who believes that might makes right, and that everything your imaginary friend wants according to your doctrine must therefore be right. I abhor your disregard and disrespect for the human condition and human dignity.
XGralgrathor 2 years ago
« I'd would have loved to have been in one of your classes professor, no doubt you've hated my guts, and that's fine. »
I don't think so. I would have gagged you to keep you from speaking ahead of turn, but no hard feelings.
XGralgrathor 2 years ago
« I would have actually ASKED QUESTIONS »
(1/2)
Yes, rhetorical questions, in the hope of catching somebody out on a lack of knowledge - and as soon as somebody says "I don't know" you would have jumped in and said "see! god did it after all!"
Good thing I had you gagged, isn't it?
XGralgrathor 2 years ago
« I would have actually ASKED QUESTIONS »
(2/2)
But of course in science it's okay to don't know yet. It's a starting point for asking questions - no, not your kind of questions: the kind of questions you don't think you know the answer to yet. Questions like "hm, I wonder what caused that?" (and not: "hm, I wonder how I can convince people that god caused that")
XGralgrathor 2 years ago
« Sorry ,but experiments in labs with chemical mixtures making amino acids are not "proof" that life sponteaneously generated all by itself! »
(1/5)
I guess I'm going to have to explain the difference between proof and evidence again. Sigh. Here goes:
In the natural sciences, proof is not the same as evidence. Proof is something with 100% certitude; the kind of certitude we can only achieve in formal logic or mathematics.
XGralgrathor 2 years ago
« Sorry ,but experiments in labs with chemical mixtures making amino acids are not "proof" that life sponteaneously generated all by itself! »
(2/5)
The natural sciences don't produce that kind of certitude: we approximate objective reality to models that are more or less accurate. The more observations are explained by the model, the more accurate its predictions are.
XGralgrathor 2 years ago
« Sorry ,but experiments in labs with chemical mixtures making amino acids are not "proof" that life sponteaneously generated all by itself! »
(3/5)
We don't know such a model is "the truth" and we can never know. But as long as it more or less accurately predicts our observations, we accept it as a reliable working model.
Good, so much for science 101. Onto the point:
XGralgrathor 2 years ago
« Sorry ,but experiments in labs with chemical mixtures making amino acids are not "proof" that life sponteaneously generated all by itself! »
(4/5)
As I already explained, there are several models currently being tested for the origin of life. We don't really know which of these models, if any, is the most accurate, because we don't have enough data yet.
XGralgrathor 2 years ago
« Sorry ,but experiments in labs with chemical mixtures making amino acids are not "proof" that life sponteaneously generated all by itself! »
(5/5)
But in coming up with testable models, we only have our knowledge of the world to go by. Science does not comment on the supernatural, because it cannot be tested. Chemical reactions and genetic developments can.
XGralgrathor 2 years ago
« So what's the REAL reason, professor, you and your "educated" bretheren want to "prove" evolution so badly? »
(1/2)
Okay, aside from the whole proof vs. evidence thing I've just explained, I personally have no great need to throw in my puny weight with the scientists that work with and on evolutionary theory: they've managed quite well without me for the past 50 or so years.
XGralgrathor 2 years ago
« So what's the REAL reason, professor, you and your "educated" bretheren want to "prove" evolution so badly? »
(2/2)
I *am* however quite miffed sometimes at the fervor with which you and your ilk deny reality in favor of a book of myths; and I'm not afraid of speaking my mind about that.
XGralgrathor 2 years ago
« Objective science? I doubt it! Its a WORLDVIEW »
You. Yeah, you there. First, go study scientific methodology. Learn what the scientific method is. Then study what we sofar know of evolution, and how we got to know it. Then tell me exactly where the scientists involved deviated from the steps and principles outlined in the scientific method. Chop chop.
XGralgrathor 2 years ago
i have a perfect marinade for baby meat
2xtreem4u 3 years ago
better'n blood of virgins and brimstone?
XGralgrathor 3 years ago
it has virgin blood and brimstone in it plus some secret ingredients
2xtreem4u 3 years ago
Why keep them secret?
XGralgrathor 3 years ago
You're not eating my baby. No way. It's MINE. And I'll eat it all and if I puke.
rozeboosje 3 years ago
Calm down, there's plenty of babies to go around. O, shit, I forgot, I'm pro-choice.
XGralgrathor 3 years ago
I'm curious do you use apple sauce on your babwich, or do you use mustard?
Me I love the smoked baby with brimstone mustard.
Avatra1 3 years ago
« Me I love the smoked baby with brimstone mustard. »
Any good? Me, I am an old fashioned guy; I have my babies in a marinade of virgin blood.
XGralgrathor 3 years ago
BLASPHEMER!! everyone knows that you should drink the blood, but if you marinate the baby in goats milk and then pulp together a mix of virgin blood and crows eyes then it is acceptable.
(I wonder if any Christian who reads this is going to call their priest or anything like that)
Avatra1 3 years ago
« (I wonder if any Christian who reads this is going to call their priest or anything like that) »
I can already hear them cant "See, I told you so!"
XGralgrathor 3 years ago
Hahaha yea!
"I can already hear them cant. See, I told you so!"
I don't know why but when I read that line I got a Monty Python flashback.
Avatra1 3 years ago
Or maybe it was Ricky Gervais. He did a joke about people having anal sex, and one of the lines in the joke was "See I fucking told you!"
Avatra1 3 years ago
I'll take Monty Python then; I'm allergic to stand up comedians.
XGralgrathor 3 years ago