Scholar: 'Jesus Tomb' makers mistaken

[Missileman]

Attack the messenger. Classic. Expected.

The Reverend Jim Jones was a messenger too. So is Phelps.

Here lies the problem with your entire argument. You think that your belief in the pile of manure being shoveled by pseudo-scientists should be an adequate testament to its validity. The people buying into their junk science are in the minority and for the most part are non-scientists whose main talent is pulling crap outta their ass. You claim this bonehead's work is peer reviewed...I didn't find any accceptance of his ideas.

[glockmail]

The Reverend Jim Jones was a messenger too. So is Phelps.

Here lies the problem with your entire argument. You think that your belief in the pile of manure being shoveled by pseudo-scientists should be an adequate testament to its validity. The people buying into their junk science are in the minority and for the most part are non-scientists whose main talent is pulling crap outta their ass. You claim this bonehead's work is peer reviewed...I didn't find any accceptance of his ideas.

Stephen Hawking is a pseudo-scientist? He showed that time itself is finite. If that doesn't prove a Master Plan, that what would?


Hawking. Stephen W. and Ellis, George F. R., "The Cosmic Black-Body Radiation and the Existence of Singularities in our Universe," in Astrophysical Journal 152. (1968), pp. 25-36.
Hawking, Stephen and Penyose, Roger, "The Singularities of Gravitational Collapse and Cosmology," in Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, Series A, 314. (1970), pp.529-548.

[Missileman]

Stephen Hawking is a pseudo-scientist? He showed that time itself is finite. If that doesn't prove a Master Plan, that what would?


Hawking. Stephen W. and Ellis, George F. R., "The Cosmic Black-Body Radiation and the Existence of Singularities in our Universe," in Astrophysical Journal 152. (1968), pp. 25-36.
Hawking, Stephen and Penyose, Roger, "The Singularities of Gravitational Collapse and Cosmology," in Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, Series A, 314. (1970), pp.529-548.

Switching up sources and arguments? What happened to the list of 26?

[glockmail]

Switching up sources and arguments? What happened to the list of 26?

I told you before I have hundreds. You called the first source A "pseudo-scientist" so I showed you what company he is in. Are all these guys "pseudo-scientists"?

[Missileman]

I told you before I have hundreds. You called the first source A "pseudo-scientist" so I showed you what company he is in. Are all these guys "pseudo-scientists"?

All what guys? What does Hawkings' theory about time have to do with the list of 26? If you want to really impress me, find an article where Hawkings agrees with the list of 26/

[glockmail]

All what guys? What does Hawkings' theory about time have to do with the list of 26? If you want to really impress me, find an article where Hawkings agrees with the list of 26/

What make you think I'm trying to impress you?

You can dismiss the sources all you want, but I have many examples, and it is you who are missing out on reality. It's not my concern that you may not heard the names of these guys whilst reading "mainstream" publications.

[Missileman]

What make you think I'm trying to impress you?

You can dismiss the sources all you want, but I have many examples, and it is you who are missing out on reality. It's not my concern that you may not heard the names of these guys whilst reading "mainstream" publications.

And yet, initially you claimed to have a mountain of physical evidence and so far, all you've presented is theories. Your interpretations of those theories means exactly zero to me. At this point, you've done no more than certify my initial reason for asking "what physical evidence?" I already knew that such evidence doesn't exist. It was fun to watch your ducking and diving, shucking and jiving...for a while. Your entertainment factor has waned, now you're just boring.

[glockmail]

And yet, initially you claimed to have a mountain of physical evidence and so far, all you've presented is theories. Your interpretations of those theories means exactly zero to me. At this point, you've done no more than certify my initial reason for asking "what physical evidence?" I already knew that such evidence doesn't exist. It was fun to watch your ducking and diving, shucking and jiving...for a while. Your entertainment factor has waned, now you're just boring.

The physical evidence is all around you.

[Missileman]

The physical evidence is all around you.

Your belief that water proves the existence of God carries no weight with me.

[glockmail]

Your belief that water proves the existence of God carries no weight with me.

Water, molecules, atoms, and their inteactions. All by chance.

[Missileman]

Water, molecules, atoms, and their inteactions. All by chance.

You have nothing but conjecture that it wasn't.

[glockmail]

You have nothing but conjecture that it wasn't.

With that argument DNA evidence at a murder trial would be inconclusive if it indicated a 1/ billion chance of being wrong. Why take the chance at being wrong?

Why is the water molecule the only common liquid to expand before it solidifies? (As a matter of fact, I don't know of any other molecule that behaves in this fashion, but feel free to educate me.) What are the chances of that occuring by chance?

[Missileman]

With that argument DNA evidence at a murder trial would be inconclusive if it indicated a 1/ billion chance of being wrong. Why take the chance at being wrong?

In the first place, you've yet to establish this 1/billion chance as it pertains to the formation of the universe. Let me guess, you got the figure from the list of 26 guy.

Why is the water molecule the only common liquid to expand before it solidifies? (As a matter of fact, I don't know of any other molecule that behaves in this fashion, but feel free to educate me.) What are the chances of that occuring by chance?

If you're referring to the expansion and contraction of matter when subjected to heat and cold, I believe that's a fairly common occurence. Did you learn anything?

[glockmail]

In the first place, you've yet to establish this 1/billion chance as it pertains to the formation of the universe. Let me guess, you got the figure from the list of 26 guy.




If you're referring to the expansion and contraction of matter when subjected to heat and cold, I believe that's a fairly common occurence. Did you learn anything?

1. You don't like the source, so I shouldn't bother.
2. Actually its a very rare occurance, as stated earlier.

[Missileman]

2. Actually its a very rare occurance, as stated earlier.

Sorry to burst your pseudo-scientific bubble, but ALL matter expands when heated and contracts when cooled. Water is unique in that it expands when heated or frozen. That water behaves in this unique manner is hardly evidence of design or creation.