1Sharon:


Excuse me? Was that mention for you?

Excuse you, when you quoted me earlier, did I directly mention you?

needanswer:


Excuse you, when you quoted me earlier, did I directly mention you?

What does your mention have to do with my previous post?

1Sharon:



What does your mention have to do with my previous post?

You quoted me just like I have quoted you, follow the simple logic.

LordReed:



Okay I correct myself. It's not a god of the gaps argument even though its similar. However it is a fallacy of false equivalence. I will edit my inital post to reflect.

Aight boss

1Sharon:


Ofcourse you don't care because you're not a thinker.

Cain cannot scientifically be any other race but black.

As I said, the Bentley can always be made in a variety of colours without limit.

needanswer:


You quoted me just like I have quoted you, follow the simple logic.

What logic ?

How did your mention in anyway relate to my post?

Dtruthspeaker:


As I said, the Bentley can always be made in a variety of colours without limit.

Ok. God is a magician

Weh done.

1Sharon:


What logic ?

How did your mention in anyway relate to my post?

Go back to where you quoted me first and start from there. You will figure it out, I trust.

Image123:

Are you seriously telling me that if i look closely enough at this sentence, i will see that "Eve had sex with Satan before eating the fruit and gave birth to his son, Cain."
In that case, i have to fear who is not afraid for you. May God help you.

The Truth that often sets a man free is most often the Truth he does not want to hear.

It is your right, to fear to Know!

1Sharon:


Ok. God is a magician

Weh done.

The art and science of creating is always "magic" to Nigerians.

needanswer:


Go back to where you quoted me first and start from there. You will figure it out, I trust.

Did your mention have anything to do with my post?


Off point!

1Sharon:


Did your mention have anything to do with my post?


Off point!

Must it have anything to do with it, in the first place? No! I mentioned you as you mentioned me from the blue.

needanswer:


You made zero meaningful contribution.

all mouth and empty in substance. you are lucky the atheist arguing with you are not grounded in science, they would have put you to rest in 2minutes by using your own science against you.

EMILO2STAY:
all mouth and empty in substance. you are lucky the atheist arguing with you are not grounded in science, they would have put you to rest in 2minutes by using your own science against you.

Thank you for confirming what I knew all along about the atheist on this thread. All the atheist here, take your respective subs from EMILO2STAY.

They are terrible with logical arguments but they made an attempt, they tried at least, can't say the same about you.

needanswer:


Thank you for confirming what I knew all along about the atheist on this thread. All the atheist here, take your respective subs from EMILO2STAY.

They are terrible with logical arguments but they made an attempt, they tried at least, can't say the same about you.

go sit down , you nothing about science.

EMILO2STAY:
go sit down , you nothing about science.

You can say that a thousand times, doesn't make a difference. Like I said, you made no difference here.

needanswer:


Must it have anything to do with it, in the first place? No! I mentioned you as you mentioned me from the blue.

You create a thread and resulting comments are out of the blue?


On a thread you created ?

1Sharon:


You create a thread and resulting comments are out of the blue?


On a thread you created ?

I'll wrap up my thoughts to you in a sentence; don't ask me questions, if you aren't going to respond to the answer.

That's the lesson.

Your questions below directed at me from the blues, which I graciously responded to.

1Sharon:


Since you know so much about God, explain what he looks like?

1Sharon:


Right. So God just created humans, but doesn't want to intervene?

needanswer:


I'll wrap up my thoughts to you in a sentence; don't ask me questions, if you aren't going to respond to the answer.

That's the lesson.

Your questions below directed at me from the blues, which I graciously responded to.

You create a thread and responses you get are are from the blue? You will learn.

1Sharon:


You create a thread and responses you get are are from the blue? You will learn.

You threw a tantrum because I quoted you. I quoted you because you asked a question, I took my time to answer and you just ignored.

I have learnt. I'll look at who I respond to in future. Not everyone needs a response.

LordReed:


No I don't simply think people are deluded for using that word belief. It is necessary to point out that belief doesn't apply because they always invariably try to equate faith in god with trust in the accuracy of the scientific process. They not the same thing. I don't need to even trust the scientific process for it to work. The very device you are using to communicate is proof of that, whether you trust it or not, it will still work.

You nor anyone else has “blatant evidence” that the Evolutionary process of 'Abiogenesis' is a proven thing.
It's a different thing from a device that everyone can see it work. No sane person will deny it's theory because it's a scientific FACT.
It takes faith to trust in 'mysterious process' as a base for disbelief in a diety cos' you think it cannot be founded as FACT with science rule
So, let everyone enjoy their own mystery . WINWIN

needanswer:


You threw a tantrum because I quoted you. I quoted you because you asked a question, I took my time to answer and you just ignored.

I have learnt. I'll look at who I respond to in future. Not everyone needs a response.

Okay God.

haddeylium:


You nor anyone else has “blatant evidence” that the Evolutionary process of 'Abiogenesis' is a proven thing.
It's a different thing from a device that everyone can see it work. No sane person will deny it's theory because it's a scientific FACT.
It takes faith to trust in 'mysterious process' as a base for disbelief in a diety cos' you think it cannot be founded as FACT with science rule
So, let everyone enjoy their own mystery . WINWIN

I never said Abiogenesis is a theoretical fact, I was only illustrating how scientific facts work independent of any beliefs.

You can choose to believe in skydaddy, I have no problem with that but don't use your beliefs to shield misinformation. You won't get any protection because you think your sky daddy beliefs give you immunity from criticism.

Dtruthspeaker:


The Truth that often sets a man free is most often the Truth he does not want to hear.

It is your right, to fear to Know!

Do you realize that the truth you don't want to hear is that you are wrong, adding to the Word of God and backslidden?

LordReed:


Huh? When did I call dark energy a false teaching? LoL. I said your saying scientists BELIEVE in dark enervy is not a fact, scientists posit dark energy as an explanation, they don't need to believe it.

This is where you brought confusion into your argument. I knew belief can be attributed to science BASED on SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE but you didn't think so.

Image123:

Do you realize that the truth you don't want to hear is that you are wrong, adding to the Word of God and backslidden?

No sir, I was waiting for you or someone to say I am wrong and asking me, to show how I came to see this fact, but no one has. Which is why I said it appears that I am the only one just knowing it, even crazy Oronto27 knew before I did.

needanswer:



This is where you brought confusion into your argument. I knew belief can be attributed to science BASED on SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE but you didn't think so.

Is not that I don't think belief can't apply, it's that you believers in a god usually try to equate them or use it as an argument that science is like religion since belief is involved. If you are going to use belief with science then you should make it clear that you do not mean it as you would mean religious faith.

needanswer:


This other reference is the one you quoted online.

You left out the end.

Is it not clear from all you have posted that posit means to affirm? Or are you just reading the meaning you want into it?

LordReed:


Is not that I don't think belief can't apply, it's that you believers in a god usually try to equate them or use it as an argument that science is like religion since belief is involved. If you are going to use belief with science then you should make it clear that you do not mean it as you would mean religious faith.

Excuse me, you thought otherwise. You never took your time to understand my position or write up since the beginning as I said, all you have just been doing is going left, right and back again.

You will still find another piece in my write up to attack and criticize without trying to understand what I wrote there first.

LordReed:


Is it not clear from all you have posted that posit means to affirm? Or are you just reading the meaning you want into it?

But you also saw posit means in both verb and noun form to assume and to suggest?

When I said science BELIEVES in DARK ENERGY as a FACT, you didn't stand for it. I thought you would have figured out that the BELIEF there is based on scientific evidence which makes it a Fact, so when you used posit, the next logical thing was to conclude that you meant it as an ASSUMPTION, since it Carries that meaning too.

You brought us this far.

needanswer:


But you also saw posit means in both verb and noun form to assume and to suggest?

When I said science BELIEVES in DARK ENERGY as a FACT, you didn't stand for it. I thought you would have figured out that the BELIEF there is based on scientific evidence which makes it a Fact, so when you used posit, the next logical thing was to conclude that you meant it as an ASSUMPTION, since it Carries that meaning too.

You brought us this far.

I agree, we do need to clarify meanings from time to time.

needanswer:



Excuse me, you thought otherwise. You never took your time to understand my position or write up since the beginning as I said, all you have just been doing is going left, right and back again.

You will still find another piece in my write up to attack and criticize without trying to understand what I wrote there first.

You are trying to make an argument for a god, it's only natural for me to think that you are trying to equate scientific certainty with religious faith. I think it's better we have a discussion so that your position is clearly understood, instead of expecting one to swallow everything without question.