http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic.php?t=25422
I would link to the full topic, but it is in a members-only section of the forum.
Anyways, in the debate, I made the fundie an offer to come to Stardestroyer.net and present his scientific findings to some certified scientists. All PMs are quoted without editing.
DarkPrimus wrote:The religion thread is closed now...
However, my offer still stands.
If you wish to bring your scientific findings for the Biblical flood and other stuff like that to the attention of people who actually know about science, rather than an ignoramus such as I, then proceed to post it in the Science, Morality, and Logic forum at this message board:
http://bbs.stardestroyer.net
GuGueater wrote:that'll take a LOT of my time, because they'll be knowing exactly what i'll say, and depending on their religious thoughts, will attempt to strike me down even if my theories ARE partly correct. thus, i can't be wasting time like that. speaking of which, i have to do my HSC trials for Math in two weeks...
oh yeah, i don't usually work in theoritical physics anyway; i work in electromagnetics and superconductivity.
DarkPrimus wrote:I wasn't aware that they could read minds. How else would they know exactly what you would say?
If you theories were partially correct, they would admit it. Don't be so quick to assume that they would deny true statements as false because they don't agree with the theory (unlike some people...).
You can't waste time? If you consider defending the basis of your lifestyle to be wasted time, then perhaps you shouldn't consider yourself a Christian...
GuGuEater wrote: because in those forums i would have to point out exactly what i'm saying, not figuratively as i would normally argue. which doesn't work, cos of my lacking english...
maybe they will agree. but until i guess i have even more evidence, i'll leave the topic alone.
i consider it a waste of time because there are much better things to do for God instead of dribbling on and on about endless amount of argument over the net. because;
'Arguing over the Internet is like participating in Special Olympics. Even if you win, you're still a retard.'
DarkPrimus wrote:Considering how long you debated with me, you're a pretty big retard.
GuGuEater wrote:being a retard doesn't matter for me. i, after all, was a retard on school and medical record. i can't deny that. i still probably am. awwDarkPrimus wrote: Considering how long you debated with me, you're a pretty big retard.
the problem is not me, but people who actually replied.
DarkPrimus wrote: Wait, so how is it that you are retarded, and yet won all these science awards?
And I really like that last sentence. Since you lost the debate, you are now calling the people who won names. Ad hominem.
GuGuEater wrote:FYI, i _was_ a retard. well, thought to be by my teachers. until i proved it wrong.
as for the thread, i only forfeited simply because you don't seem to know anything. which actually is, i forfeited to ATh him only. why? 1200AD time period isn't my field. at all. you assumed you won but really, it's ATh who won.
you see, by me saying that arguing online makes anyone arguing retard should only concern you, because me being retart doesn't matter.
remember, you're arguing in science 20 years or more ago. recent science actually proves Christianity right than it bashed it
DarkPrimus wrote: You claim that now, but you never provided this evidence in the debate. Perhaps you should provide it on the message board I suggested? If it proves you right, then you have nothing to fear... they won't deny the truth.
GuGuEater wrote: why do i claim it now? because talking about Hawking's new BB calculations in a place where people can't even distinguish 'at least soundable' theories and just excusedly made up ones is pointless.
and no, i already have so much to do. my schedule is... set. that and i'll have to write the entire thoughts of the theory somewhere, which takes time, which i don't have...
DarkPrimus wrote:Sure, keep making excuses. The more you make, the more cowardly you prove yourself to be.
GuGuEater wrote: and more you say that, the more idiot of you become. why? you can't even prove i'm wrong.
oh sure, i'm a coward when i was the one who admits defeat at a person who knows more about a subject than me, and you butt in and thinks you won
DarkPrimus wrote: I did prove you were wrong. The fact that you can't admit it doesn't make it change. If you think you are right, then why not repost the information at the message board I reccomended? Oh, that's right, because you were wrong.
GuGuEater wrote:where exactly did you prove me wrong? all your statements were wrong.
in matter of fact, water on the atmosphere also explains why people lived shorter after the flood. it rained, not much more protection, until people could resist the sun's ray better their life span reduced. which stopped at 120. exactly like what God said in the bible. not a concidence.
you know, don't make me post in other forums simply because you can't argue because you don't anything. go ahead, bring any scientific excuses to prove bible wrong, see if you can.
DarkPrimus wrote:GuGuEater wrote:
where exactly did you prove me wrong? all your statements were wrong.
No, they were correct. You didn't disprove my statements, while I disproved yours. You cannot deny this, because the thread still exists, for all to see.
in matter of fact, water on the atmosphere also explains why people lived shorter after the flood.
Except that it is impossibel for all the water to have been in the atmosphere. This was dealt with in the topic.
it rained, not much more protection, until people could resist the sun's ray better their life span reduced.
Ballocks.
which stopped at 120.
There are people in the Bible who lived to be older than 120, and people who died earlier than 120. Whoops.
exactly like what God said in the bible. not a concidence.
God also said in the Bible that the SAME KING was crowed at age 22, and at age 42. Whoops, contradiction.
you know, don't make me post in other forums simply because you can't argue because you don't anything.
I don't what anything?
go ahead, bring any scientific excuses to prove bible wrong, see if you can.
I already did, fuckwit. They were in the thread, which you can't seem to remember. Must be all that Bible-bashing into your skull.
GuGuEater wrote:so, you want to argue more huh? sure.
DarkPrimus wrote:No, they were correct. You didn't disprove my statements, while I disproved yours. You cannot deny this, because the thread still exists, for all to see.GuGuEaTeR wrote: where exactly did you prove me wrong? all your statements were wrong.
umm, no. there is nothing you didn't prove. bring me anything that does prove my theory wrong. if there is, i'll just bash it to ground again.
in matter of fact, water on the atmosphere also explains why people lived shorter after the flood.
Except that it is impossibel for all the water to have been in the atmosphere. This was dealt with in the topic.
who says it can't? so you're saying there's more land than sky. which is frankly stupid, because there's a whole open gap in the sky there and land is always smaller than it.
prove it wrong that you can't hold more water in the sky than on land.
it rained, not much more protection, until people could resist the sun's ray better their life span reduced.
Ballocks.
Balls have nothing to do with it. -Kensuke
which stopped at 120.
There are people in the Bible who lived to be older than 120, and people who died earlier than 120. Whoops.
and did you realise that they were people who were actually before the flood? read the bible again. by Moses's stage, the age gets reduced to 120. then it stays as that age even until now. now let's see who's stupid.
http://www .yfiles.com/120years.html Note: The website is worth a laugh, go check it out.
exactly like what God said in the bible. not a concidence.
God also said in the Bible that the SAME KING was crowed at age 22, and at age 42. Whoops, contradiction.
i take it as crowned.
and why can't you be crowned at 22 AND at 42? you can be king twice. who said no?
you know, don't make me post in other forums simply because you can't argue because you don't anything.
I don't what anything?
then explain Big Bang Theory.
no you didn't, all you did was;go ahead, bring any scientific excuses to prove bible wrong, see if you can.
I already did, fuckwit. They were in the thread, which you can't seem to remember. Must be all that Bible-bashing into your skull.
1) make stupid theories that can never make sense with stupid calculations beyond words
2) i can't use Bible to prove it.
there wasn't anything you could use to prove it wrong. if there was, then state it again.
DarkPrimus wrote:I see that we are going to have the same debate over again...
GuGuEaTeR wrote: umm, no. there is nothing you didn't prove. bring me anything that does prove my theory wrong. if there is, i'll just bash it to ground again.
The ignorance is strong in this one...
who says it can't? so you're saying there's more land than sky. which is frankly stupid, because there's a whole open gap in the sky there and land is always smaller than it.
It's not a matter of space, it's a matter of radiation. Please refer back to the topic.
prove it wrong that you can't hold more water in the sky than on land.
That wasn't my arguement, so I don't have to.
Balls have nothing to do with it. -Kensuke
You miss the point, and you can't even make up a snappy comeback of your own.
As for your whole age thing, I have told you enough times already, the Bible cannot be used to prove itself. It is circular logic.
i take it as crowned.
Debating semantics now, are we?
and why can't you be crowned at 22 AND at 42? you can be king twice. who said no?
Both passages were referring to the SAME coronation, dumbass. That is why it is a contradiction.
I don't what anything?
then explain Big Bang Theory.
You didn't answer the question. You said I can't argue "because you don't anything". I don't what anything?
no you didn't, all you did was;
1) make stupid theories that can never make sense with stupid calculations beyond words
You didn't disprove them. I disproved all your arguements. You think the rain falling on the world cancels each other out? Then surely, if I swung a sledgehammer at the front AND back of your leg at the same time, they would cancel out each other.
2) i can't use Bible to prove it.
Because you can't. I don't know why you haven't figured that out yet.
here wasn't anything you could use to prove it wrong. if there was, then state it again.
I don't like repeating myself, idiot. If you can't be bothered to read all the refutations I made of your "arguements", as they were, then you can't continue a debate at all.
Oh, and since we are obviously debating again, why not go over and continue the debate on that message board? If you say no, I'll just quote these PMs there anyways, so you might as well say yes.
GuGuEater wrote:DarkPrimus wrote: I see that we are going to have the same debate over again...
yes indeed.
The ignorance is strong in this one...umm, no. there is nothing you didn't prove. bring me anything that does prove my theory wrong. if there is, i'll just bash it to ground again.
well, then prove it wrong. go ahead. i never saw you proving it wrong. come on. i'm waiting.
who says it can't? so you're saying there's more land than sky. which is frankly stupid, because there's a whole open gap in the sky there and land is always smaller than it.
It's not a matter of space, it's a matter of radiation. Please refer back to the topic.
water doesn't radiate.
prove it wrong that you can't hold more water in the sky than on land.
That wasn't my arguement, so I don't have to.
there you go. you can put more water on the sky than land, so you can have all those water floating on the sky.
Balls have nothing to do with it. -Kensuke
You miss the point, and you can't even make up a snappy comeback of your own.
whatever.
As for your whole age thing, I have told you enough times already, the Bible cannot be used to prove itself. It is circular logic.
logic, logic, logic. you really think you're the smartest in the world, don't you?
you've been saying it's circular forever, and never shown anything that proves me wrong. you're avoiding a source. which is the only source. so you're ignorant.
i take it as crowned.
Debating semantics now, are we?
what the hell is crowed then?
and why can't you be crowned at 22 AND at 42? you can be king twice. who said no?
Both passages were referring to the SAME coronation, dumbass. That is why it is a contradiction.
describe.
anything that can be done by a person. you do NOT anything. stupid english, but you'll have to get it yourself.
then explain Big Bang Theory.
You didn't answer the question. You said I can't argue "because you don't anything". I don't what anything?
no you didn't, all you did was;
1) make stupid theories that can never make sense with stupid calculations beyond words
You didn't disprove them. I disproved all your arguements. You think the rain falling on the world cancels each other out? Then surely, if I swung a sledgehammer at the front AND back of your leg at the same time, they would cancel out each other.
yes i did. canceling out works because a single rain doesn't do anything. if my legs were chemically structured to be strong enough like Earth is, then it would cancle out.
if you think it's wrong, explain to me air pressure and how you can live under it.
but Bible is correct. prove it wrong if you want, but i say it's correct. why? go read BB theory. if you think BB theory is wrong, go talk to Hawkings.2) i can't use Bible to prove it.
Because you can't. I don't know why you haven't figured that out yet.[/quote[
there wasn't anything you could use to prove it wrong. if there was, then state it again.
I don't like repeating myself, idiot. If you can't be bothered to read all the refutations I made of your "arguements", as they were, then you can't continue a debate at all.
just lazy aren't you
Oh, and since we are obviously debating again, why not go over and continue the debate on that message board? If you say no, I'll just quote these PMs there anyways, so you might as well say yes.
you can start the thread if you want. remember, it was closed because of swearing. which i didn't start btw.
DarkPrimus wrote:GuGuEaTeR wrote:
water doesn't radiate.
Did I say the water radiated? No. If you had read any of my posts in the original thread, you would understand. Of course, since you keep denying that I ever refuted your arguements, it's obvious that you haven't read the posts... ever.
prove it wrong that you can't hold more water in the sky than on land.
That wasn't my arguement, so I don't have to.
there you go. you can put more water on the sky than land, so you can have all those water floating on the sky.
It's the fact that the water would affect the atmosphere and would cause lethal amounts of radiation to get through the ozone. See the original thread.
As for your whole age thing, I have told you enough times already, the Bible cannot be used to prove itself. It is circular logic.
logic, logic, logic. you really think you're the smartest in the world, don't you?
No, just smarter than you.
Pay attention here, class, this is where I start having some fun...you're avoiding a source. which is the only source. so you're ignorant.
No, you are being the ignorant one. You cannot use a source to prove itself. Otherwise, I could write a book right now, that says that I am God, and because my book proves that I am God, I am God. That is how your "logic" is working.
Both passages were referring to the SAME coronation, dumbass. That is why it is a contradiction.
describe.
"Two and twenty years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign."
2 Kings 8:26
"Forty and two years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign."
2 Chronicles 22:2
Also, the year in which he began to reign is contradicted.
"In the twelfth year of Joram the son of Ahab king of Israel did Ahaziah the son of Jehoram king of Judah begin to reign."
2 Kings 8:25
"And in the eleventh year of Joram the son of Ahab began Ahaziah to reign."
2 Kings 9:29
anything that can be done by a person. you do NOT anything. stupid english, but you'll have to get it yourself.
It isn't proper, or even IMPROPER English. You need something inbetween "don't" and "anything" for the sentence to be coherant.
yes i did. canceling out works because a single rain doesn't do anything. if my legs were chemically structured to be strong enough like Earth is, then it would cancle out.
Prove the chemical structure of the Earth cancels out force.
but Bible is correct. prove it wrong if you want, but i say it's correct.
Burden of Proof. You need to prove it is wrong.
Note: Yes, I KNOW I made a typo there...
why? go read BB theory. if you think BB theory is wrong, go talk to Hawkings.
Stephen Hawking believes in A god, but he has stated before that it is not the Christian god. Appeal to Authority, as well as Red Herring.
just lazy aren't you
Says the man who can't be bothered to take a couple of minutes to re-read a few posts.
you can start the thread if you want. remember, it was closed because of swearing. which i didn't start btw.
Like I care. Swearing doesn't matter on the other board.
But thanks for allowing me all the same. They'll love how stupid you are.
END PART 1GuGuEater wrote: let's see.
DarkPrimus wrote: Did I say the water radiated? No. If you had read any of my posts in the original thread, you would understand. Of course, since you keep denying that I ever refuted your arguements, it's obvious that you haven't read the posts... ever.
you're talking about radiation passing through water? HA! why do you think they make the nuclear shelter walls made out of concrete and water for? concrete for physical blast and water for absorption! there is no other chemical so common AND absorbing than water.
there you go. you can put more water on the sky than land, so you can have all those water floating on the sky.
It's the fact that the water would affect the atmosphere and would cause lethal amounts of radiation to get through the ozone. See the original thread.
no. you don't know water. go away and learn science and see how microwave ovens works. and bunkers. and other misc water protection stuff.
logic, logic, logic. you really think you're the smartest in the world, don't you?
No, just smarter than you.
prove you are. you have yet to show me any intellegence on matter of science. only stupid theories of yours only thought in pre-1900s.
you're avoiding a source. which is the only source. so you're ignorant.
No, you are being the ignorant one. You cannot use a source to prove itself. Otherwise, I could write a book right now, that says that I am God, and because my book proves that I am God, I am God. That is how your "logic" is working.
but you have no power, nothing to be feared about. that's a stupid god.
God has all powers. you don't. other gods don't. that's partly why i believe in God, instead of you or any other god, or anyone else, including myself.
by stating that you think you are so good to say you're a god, you're just thinking that you are smarter and more 'stronger' than everyone else, which is stupid, because everyone is exactly the same.
"Two and twenty years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign."
2 Kings 8:26
"Forty and two years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign."
2 Chronicles 22:2
read just after genesis. have you noticed that there are plenty of people names Jesus? oh gees, i suppose they are all the same people
Also, the year in which he began to reign is contradicted.
"In the twelfth year of Joram the son of Ahab king of Israel did Ahaziah the son of Jehoram king of Judah begin to reign."
2 Kings 8:25
"And in the eleventh year of Joram the son of Ahab began Ahaziah to reign."
2 Kings 9:29
doens't change anything about my state that you can rule twice at the same time.
that and old testament is useless for Christians but for why to believe in Jesus.
so now you're going on about my lack of english.
It isn't proper, or even IMPROPER English. You need something inbetween "don't" and "anything" for the sentence to be coherant.
Prove the chemical structure of the Earth cancels out force.
well then, does your house disappear or boil up because it rained so much? or at least make a crack?
that and Earth contains plenty of minerals other metal forms that are obviously more stronger in bond than energised liquid like rain.
why would i want to prove it wrong? it's correct. gees. it's YOU who have to prove it wrong.