Total posts: 5,875
Posted in:
-->
@Ramshutu
Ram is a debate board alum. Their focus is to win debates, not win arguments by sound logic. So they will try to bog you down with semantics and defining your argument for you, and then insist that their definition is your argument.
He cares nothing about the rationality of the arguments, his eye is on the "voters" who will "hand" him a win with their clique votes. He's not in formal debate, but he's unable to come out of DDO's shifty debate mode.
If you beat him bad enough, one of his clique will chime in with a post that serves as a "vote" against you and for him. And both of them will claim you are wrong, and he's won.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Ramshutu
No sir it doesn't. Magma is molten rock genius.
Erm - yes? That’s why “It just moves between the mantle and the surface” is what “earths magma contains water in volumes that are variable” means. Did you lose track of what you were arguing?
Ah, lol! That's why you keep saying magma. You really should look up magma and bone up on geology before you post again. The water is in the Earth's mantle, not in magma.
No it didn’t. You are confusing “known water reserves are insufficient to cover the earth”, and “we absolutely know without reasonable doubt how much water was in the earth. Not the same.
Which is why only atheists on websites like this brought up the "not enough water on Earth" clunker.
That’s like the 4927th reason id invoke against a global flood
It is now. Yes.
The conditions the water can be brought to the surface is when pockets of magma interact with the world;
Untrue. Please let's stick to known science and not uninformed conjecture.
Pretty sure that Cataclysmic volcanic activity overturning billions of square kilometres of magma to release its water; would not be described as water spurting from the ground, but a burning hellfire that vaporized every ocean on the planet
And that doesn't clue you in that your "magma" idea is loony? Any water in Rock would be squeezed out under the tremendous pressure needed to make it hot enough to melt, and any water would immediately vaporize out as soon as the pressure dropped long before the magma reached the surface.
Lol. Funny how new scientific revelations always confirm the Bible's narrative.
Except, of course, when it doesn’t...
And someday you will offer one, instead of debunking claims NOT in the Bible, like young Earth.
Science has hundreds of thousands of studies that comprehensively disprove what the Bible says.
This thread is about water on Earth.
It has a handful of examples that can be argued to be consistent with what the Bible says.
And one must list those alleged hundreds of thousands of studies whenever one talks about a specific point?
Using the ones that Agree with you, and ignoring all the ones that do not - is cherry picking.
I have "ignored" nothing, unless you mean that my OP did not contain hundreds of thousands of studies.
This thread is about the water on Earth, not about evolution, or age of the Earth, or common ancestors. You wish to deflect to those topics because you know atheists have lost the "enough water on Earth" topic.
Please block quote this whole thing and reply to it in one go
Sorry, not when you bury multiple untruths inside single sentences.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
This is a bigger issue than both of these combined!
Not to the ones dying from police brutality or terrorism.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Wylted
Ah, video evidence. Video enabled smart phones. A distribution network called social media. Liberals are aghast.
Created:
Posted in:
I have offered a starting point argument...
A "starting point" argument. Lol.
Created:
Posted in:
You’re not the hero the religious forum needs. You are the hero the religious forum deserves.
The only bigotry still welcome on Dart. Homosexuals and pedophiles we protect, theists we hate.
Tell us how you feel about Jews and African Americans too Ram.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Ramshutu
That’s what “earths magma contains water in volumes that are variable“ means..
No sir it doesn't. Magma is molten rock genius.
So, the Bible is not particularly specific: it simply says water came from beneath the earth.
True. And at first atheists were like "Har, har!! Until science caught up and found there IS more than enough water inside the Earth.
Did such a flood happen? No: science can rule that one out.
Science once "ruled out" enough water on Earth to cover every peak.
Is it possible for it to happen? No: this water is not free water; and is locked up in magma hundreds of miles beneath the surface - not as water, but as OH Hydroxyl molecules bound to magma.
You've back paddled. You use to say there was simply not enough water on Earth. But sorry, science has found that under certain conditions, this water can be brought to the surface.
Is it feasible: the idea that billions of square kilometres of magma will simply move to the surface - not without kinda leaving a note.
It's not, magma man of science. It's water.
So at best; this new scientific revelation is that there now maybe being enough water - possibly - to maybe cover the earth (again - it’s not clear whether it’s confirmed sufficient), in the form of inaccessible Hydroxyl Bound to magma
Lol. Funny how new scientific revelations always confirm the Bible's narrative. And it's not magma. Magma is rock that has become so hot due to pressure that it is molten, it comes out of volcanoes.
Given the thousand other ways that the flood has been comprehensively ruled out - amount of water is low hanging fruit.
All I know is that the "there isn't enough water" chant is dead. You back paddle well.
There are hundreds thousands of scientific studies that demonstrate old earth. Demonstrate evolution, demonstrate that life has a common ancestor, demonstrate the lack of any population bottlenecks, demonstrate the local nature of various flood around the world, and explicitly rule out a cataclysmic global flood as described in Genesis
Non sequitur. None of this support your charge that I'm cherry picking.
You pointed to individual cases of data that seem to confirm your position...
I pointed to an individual case of data that is consistent with my position. That is how science works.
...while ignoring a significant portion of related and similar cases or data that contradicts that position.
You have no data that contradicts. You used to think not enough water was data that contradicted that position.
...that demonstrate old earth.
How does that contradict the Bible?
...Demonstrate evolution,
Evolution has never been demonstrated.
...demonstrate that life has a common ancestor,
I might post some recent scientific studies that question this claim. A common ancestor is an assumption, not a demonstrated fact.
...demonstrate the lack of any population bottlenecks,
This is not only laughable, it's irrelevant.
...demonstrate the local nature of various flood around the world, and explicitly rule out a cataclysmic global flood as described in Genesis.
Untrue. Science can only "rule out" a global flood within a time frame if in the relatively recent past. Noah's flood has never been "ruled out" by science, it is scientists with agendas that do so.
Your argument bullseyes the text book definition of cherry picking.
Is there now enough water? Yes.
That's the cherry on top.🍒
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Ramshutu
Science explicitly and systematically rules out a cataclysmic global flood; on a young earth, in which kinds of animals were specially created; wiped out and then all proceeds to repopulate the earth from a handful of founder breeding pairs.
Untrue. Science cannot do that because it doesn't have all the needed data.
What I *think* you mean, is that a collection of studies indicate that earths magma contains water in volumes that are variable; and from that you’ve extrapolated wild conclusions.
Again untrue. The Earth's mantle contains water, and it isn't "variable". It just moves between the mantle and the surface.
What you’re doing is called cherry picking.
And what you're doing is called misunderstanding.
Atheists first said there was not enough water on Earth for Noah's flood to be true. Science has proven that claim wrong.
Atheists then said, there was no way for the water in the Earth's mantle to come to the surface. Science again proved them wrong.
Atheists calculated that 40 days of rain would not produce enough water to cover the Earth to the depth indicated in Noah's story. The Bible says the water did not only come from rain, but from under the ground too.
Science just verified that there is more than 3 times as much water in the Earth's mantle as in all it's oceans! How am I cherry picking?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@cristo71
I think and hope you will be proven right eventually, but it is so very hard to visualize currently.
I'm 60. I've seen it happen before.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@dustryder
I say your veering because calling me a hypocrite1. Doesn't actually advance your argument (ad hom fallacy, whataboutism)
You're not interested in any argument. You are partisan and hypocritical.
2. Factually incorrect for the reasoning you've provided anyway...
You don't decide for me what's factually correct. But as a liberal you won't get that.
That's rather the process of arguments.
Hypocrasy is not one of the processes of argumentation.
You've listed several premises to lead you to the conclusion that there was no insurrection. So one way to address the conclusion is to tackle the premises one by one.
You addressed none. You screeched "chanting" and then claimed it contradicted every other point.
Unfortunately you don't seem to be able to engage with even just the one...
And yet here you are still trying to tell me how wonderful you are. I said to you, "When you can address my points, come back and we'll talk. Till then, you can rot in your TDS. Dart is not your safe space. It's for adults."
I'm not interested in your opinions of me.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
AGAIN, you have yet to give me the post in where I stated what you said above, HELLO?!
Let's do one better DeeDee.
1. Are you a racist DeeDee? Yes or no?
2. Is your Lord Jesus a racist? Yes or no?
When you answer, I will cite the turd post where you stated "what you said above."
And as you saw with your moron hindu friend, it won't matter if you dodge the question or lie, the coming burn is a certainty.
You might be able to answer If you remove your foot from your mouth schtick boy.
HUH? Wait a minute,
Lol!
you said "Why would I discuss Christian religion with a fake Christian who has admitted he doesn't follow Jesus?"
And you said, "you have yet to give me the post..."
Therefore to be true to your RUNAWAY words, you can't discuss Christian Religion with me anymore, Bible stupid and ignorant fool, DUH! LOL!!!
Are you glad you fraud? Lol!
You can't answer because you stupidly painted yourself into a corner. I didn't need your answer, I just wanted to show your fakery, village idiot.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
Hey village idiot! Your posts are becoming even more incoherent. I guess my exposing your fakery has you rattled.
It's like you're not even aware you're supposed to be addressing someone. You're like the idiot giggling to himself in the corner.
But I have a soft spot for .mental patients too. So though you still can't address your shameful betrayal of your Lord, I will still be here for you DeeDee.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Bones
Not saying TS needs a lifeline, I'm saying you often double up with when you're cornered.
You often say stupid things. Pull the fool in.
I'm glad I'm not Indian,...
Most Indians would be too. Humne kya paap kiya ke hum Hindustan me paida huwe?
You'd already be perma-banned.
Perma-banned for your activity..?
Sigh. Banned for being a caste fueled racist moron.
...the "stupid" guy
No need for quotes, you actually are stupid.
Then why do you keep coming back?
You first contacted me idiot. You're the one who first came, and keeps coming back.
No prove to me that I am stupid by beating me in a debate
You can't prove to an idiot that he's stupid. I wouldn't care to even if it were possible.
Well then if I can't read, this should be the easiest debate of your life
Keep begging Homer.
Already refuted.
You just begged me again to debate you after I've told you no. That is begging moron.
many people care about my words.
How many mom's do you have?
One more than you
2 mom's do not qualify as "many people".
You're pretty dull if you didn't know the phrase "how many" is different from "many people".
Lol. Again, like taking candy from a retard.
I'm not some insecure teenager.
You're an old man who's bad at debating and who derives joy from people who he claims are "insecure teenagers".
..and very stupid on top of their low self-esteem. Let's not forget that.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Not yet if you're on the west coast. America is not a tiny Island y'know.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
My point is, that our understanding of an external reality is wholly self contained.
And my point is, that this external reality is real despite your internal state. But you seem to be incapable of talking about this external reality.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Bones
Funny, coming from the person who's constantly yalping for tradesecret
TS never needs a lifeline. DeeDee often does. Pull the poor did in.
Tell me where I denied that I first made contact with you. I'll wait.
Here...
You approached me first begging me to debate youAlready refuted.
I'm glad I'm not Indian, or you would be criticizing that dearly.
You'd already be perma-banned.
Nothing worse than someone who's so stupid that he has to run from an intellectual battle with the "stupid" guy.
So thinks the stupid guy.
I think it's because you know you're a troll and that you're bad at debating.
No need to verify that you're a low esteem idiot. We already know.
And I answer once again. Because I don't want to debate you, and I find you a trollish idiot. Ask again and the answer will be the same.
Does it matter when you stupidly think you win debates that have not occurred?
Prove me wrong then. Exactly you can't.
Lol. Prove you wrong that you cannot "win" debates that have not occurred? My gosh you're stupid!
Well then if I can't read, this should be the easiest debate of your life
Keep begging Homer. I don't want to debate you, and I find you a trollish idiot. Someday, you will sheepishly know what "no" means.
many people care about my words.
How many mom's do you have?
One more than you
2 mom's do not qualify as "many people".
My image is...
No one cares about your "image". You do. Your low esteem and youth force you to. I'm not some insecure teenager. Grow up doofus.
You are anon on a tiny website. Blathering about image is childish.
Have you figured out what "No" means yet genius?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@cristo71
Good post.
If you agree, do you think the profession will ever get back to its previous standard?
Not as a whole. The internet has ensures that little lakes of fakery will remain.
Will it produce another one of the greats?
It will. These things ebb and flow.
But something is already happening. The media itself will not report it, but it is happening. Let me summerize...
1. Leftist news organizations are losing viewers like a sinking ship loses rats.
2. Several late night leftist stalwarts have suddenly become more... shall we say, conservative?
3. Leftist reporters are being laid off or fired in pleasingly high numbers.
4. Young people are increasingly conservative.
When the MSM says, "young people", they invariably mean the green haired, nose ring kind, but there are millions of young people in mid-america who are not entitled urban leftist loons.
The talking heads in MSM will drown as people realize how partisan they are. The big news organizations will be forced from sheer need to survive to become more objective. The rapid growth of news sites like OANN and DailyWire show that the public is changing.
Regular, non-cable TV will slowly die and fade away.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
It's my nature Z. Hardly any effort required. And if you saw Mrs. E, you'd admire that too.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
Ok, so you have evidence that the crowd was friendly and festive,...
We who? Your pal Dusty has backtracked to the single claim that the crowd chanted, "Hang Mike Spence!" And though he know this means the crowd was NOT friendly and festive, cannot say what the crowd WAS.
...we have evidence that the crowd was lawless and dangerous.
The same crowd? Because during the ruckus, there were people helping the police and discouraging people from breaking windows. Remember the democrat line that the looters were different from the "mostly peaceful demonstrators"?
How do we resolve this difference?
By answering questions put to us by the other. Only liars and demagogues dodge questions. The lack of answers, or the silliness of the answers offered, will quickly resolve the alleged difference.
For example, why was not a single person charged with rebellion, treason, sedition, or insurrection?
Why would a crowd bent on overthrow of the government come to the capitol building without weapons?
And why are you liberals ignoring the difference between your evaluations of the Jan 6th crowd and the Antifa/BLM riots? They expose your bias.
Like that, the issue would be resolved.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
@Bones
Bones, DeeDee sees you dying and is throwing you a inner tube. Lol.
In truth, the moron is himself dying and is looking for a friend that will help him dodge the issue of his hypocrasy.
Grab his lifeline and pull him in will you?
Idiots of a feather....
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
Hey village idiot, 2 posts in a row? I must have burned you good when I exposed your hypocrasy.
AGAIN, you have yet to give me the post in where I stated what you said above, HELLO?!
Let's do one better DeeDee.
1. Are you a racist DeeDee? Yes or no?
2. Is your Lord Jesus a racist? Yes or no?
When you answer, I will cite the turd post where you stated "what you said above."
And as you saw with your moron hindu friend, it won't matter if you dodge the question or lie, the coming burn is a certainty.
You might be able to answer If you remove your foot from your mouth schtick boy.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
And as I pointed out to you previously Mr E.....During a localized flooding event, water certainly does appear to be "gushing" from the ground....It is a regular phenomena where I live.
Ancient meteorites reveal that our planet had plenty of water, right from the start.
Oops! There goes the atheist counter that the Earth does not have enough water to have fed Noah's flood.
....Geologic evidence suggests that over Earths history, the fluxes of water between the interior and the surface - have been large.
The Bible notes that Noah's flood was augmented by water gushing from underground. How did the author know this fact so long before science did?
"This discovery can help scientists create new, more accurate models of what's going on inside the Earth,..."
"...new, more accurate models..." means, closer to the narrative in the Bible.
"And the spirit of God moved over the deep..." - Genesis.
Har, har, har! Was the early Earth a ball of water? - old atheist.
"We"re not sure how [the water] got there. Maybe it"s been stuck there since early in Earth"s history...."
Silence - New atheist.
Keep that head buried in the sand Zed, science isn't done catching up yet.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@dustryder
It's not that I'm always right in the slightest.
You aren't. But boy do you think you are! You will presume to decide for others what's relevant, you will
describe the argument of others and pretend your description is reality, you totally act as if your perception is actual reality.
This is why Liberals want all details and context removed. Because reality shames them. So in our discussion you've regressed to no position at all except, "The crowd chanted."
You run from your hypocrasy of calling an actually violent crowd, "mostly peaceful" while calling the peaceful crowd, violent. So when I mention your hypocrasy, you squeal that I'm "veering".
You cant even say what the crowd was, only what it was "not". You can't address the lack of any arrests for attempted murder, rebellion, insurrection, or treason. You can't mention Pelosi or her role as capitol police boss, you can't mention the FBI report on the events on the date we are discussing. All of those things to you are, me "wandering off screeching."
You are a complete hypocrite. Probably, given your high intelligence, you are the most dishonest person on Dart. Other liberal partisan hacks can blame their relatively low IQ. You have no such excuse.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Don't worry Zed, God doesn't need your belief to exist either.
Well..... You always presume to know that I am a liberal.
Words mean things Zed. You express the opinions of a liberal in your posts. Perhaps you don't know yourself as well as you think you do.
Yep....Perception is.... Incoming data signals converted into imagery somewhere between Mr E's ears....You see her, you touch her, you smell her and you're confident in the image that you create.
Right liberal. There is no Mrs. E, just the image "I create."
Mr E thinks...Therefore both he and she are.....
I happen to know that during 2 days in 2013, when I did not think, Mrs. E continued to exist.
For sure....I have the same level of confidence too, in myself and the lovely Mrs Zed.
Your level of confidence has nothing to do with the reality of Mrs. Z.
Confidence in what?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Bones
No, you're the one who actively searched the forums to see if I gave you some attention
You approached me first begging me to debate you
Already refuted.
Lol. Luckily the board keeps a record. The post you first addressed me...
Goodness getting agitated. The DDO ethang coming out.
Wait. More is coming.
And yet you're running away from the "stupid guy"
So thinks the stupid guy.
...you are the one running, not me.
So thinks the stupid guy.
And yet you only reply to the banter, and never the substantive.
Because I don't want to debate you and I find you a trollish idiot.
Because you you know you will lose.
Does it matter when you stupidly think you win debates that have not occurred?
If you don't want to wait, then @ me when you make a post to me.
I didn't approach you. You approached me. I told you that you were a moron and that I was not interested in debating you. Please, buy a clue.
Chihuahua?
Well, I know Chihuahuas can't read, so none are likely to be insulted by the comparison.
...If anything, you're the little puppy, coming back wishing hopefully that I replied
Ok. Keep replying and I will keep burning you. It isn't you who wants something from me.
...many people care about my words. Can't say the same for you.
How many mom's do you have?
No I'm not laughing at the joke, I'm laughing at the fact that you think you're making jokes.
A vitally important difference.
The only thing your burning is your public image.
My image is not the one following me around begging for attention.
My image is...
I don't care about "image". You do. Your low esteem and youth force you to. I'm not some insecure teenager.
Have you figured out what "No" means yet genius?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
I don't know who you're addressing in your turd spam post above DeeDee, but you addressed it to me. Why are talking to someone other than to whom you addressed the post? You do know that no one reads your schtick posts right?
The question is still there, village idiot. You said you disagree with your Lord Jesus. That makes you a pseudo-christian. Those are your standards. You said, "A true Christian" follows Christ."
Now, you can re-spam your word salad schtick about axioms and praises, or you can address your own comments. Either way, your fakery will be exposed.
You aren't a true christian follower of Jesus, you're a fake. A fraud. You slipped up and exposed your lying ways.
Real Christians follow Jesus, frauds like you hide behind spam.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Amoranemix
ethang5 to TheUnderdog :But as I suspected, atheists will not want to talk about the thread's topic, but will instead tell us how they personally don't believe the Bible.[6]Amoranemix 22 :[6] Your prediction turns out to be wrong.ethang5 26 :Unless you carry the plural of majesty, my prediction is still right.
You are mistaken. None of them have explained how they personally don't believe the Bible.
As I think any unbiased person reading this thread will see you are wrong, I can leave this point as is.
I came here to see theists try to support the irrationality of atheism and show them wrong and I suspect other atheists did too.
Yet other than ask questions about claims, you haven't once defended atheism or attacked the claim that it is irrational.
Alas, they won't even bother. In stead they lured atheists into debating NDE's and the popularity of Christianity.
Both of those tangential topics were brought up by atheists. Atheism is irrational because it is self-contradictory.
ethang5 26 :Just their responses here aptly demonstrate the irrationality of atheism.[7]Amoranemix 22 :[7] Is that a fact or just your personal opinion ?ethang5 26 :It would be amazing if my personal opinion was being posted by atheists. The OP claimed atheism was irrational. Not a single atheist poster, including you, has spoken about atheism. Instead, you all either attacked Christianity, or merely requested clarification of his argument.[8]If any of you actually tried to defend atheism, he would quickly see that something irrational cannot be logically defended.[9] And that is why the responses here aptly demonstrate the irrationality of atheism.
[8] You are assuming that an unsubstantiated claim is an attack worthy enough to require a defense. That may be your personal opinion, but it is not mine.
Then your responding here is quizzical.
My personal opinion is that the burden of proof lies with the one making the claim. For some reason the OP has been unable to deliver.
That is because atheists think delivering on the BoP means "convincing" them. My personal opinion is that no one needs an atheist's validation. They only need to present a valid argument.
Furthermore, you are mistaken. If you read the first page of this thread, you will notice several people have spoken about atheism.
Mentioning the word "atheism" is not the same as defending atheism as rational or debunking the claim that atheism is irrational.
[9] If theists really believed that, you would expect them to present a pertinent case against atheism to enjoy the spectacle of atheists showing their irrationality when they clumsily try to defend atheism.
Lol!! Our perceptions of the religion board certainly are different!
"...atheists showing their irrationality when they clumsily try to defend atheism." Is a succinct discription of what atheists do on the religion board. For those few atheists that actually try at least.
The problem is, for that theists would need something resembling a defensible case. Most Christians aren't the ignorant fools they pretend to be. They know presenting the best case they have would show the opposite of what they desire.
Ah, yes, the old atheist nugget of pretending to know the inner mind and intentions of the theist. I bet you think that is logic, hmm?
So, thank you for sharing your personal opinion with us, but skeptics prefer to believe in reality.
Reality is never irrational. Though skeptics are free to be irrational. But that discrepancy will become obvious when said skeptics enter the religion board of debate site.
Your comment,
"...atheists showing their irrationality when they clumsily try to defend atheism."
Is amazingly close to my comment,
"If any of you actually tried to defend atheism, he would quickly see that something irrational cannot be logically defended. And that is why the responses here aptly demonstrate the irrationality of atheism."
Though I would have used the word "inept" instead of "clumsy", and you're welcome.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Yes Mr E.......But all the inner turmoil your imagination brings, in defence of the imaginary principles held therein.
With the amazing power to know what's inside a person online they've never met, I always wonder why liberals aren't millionaires. No wonder all those half-baked mental "professionals" were able to diagnose Trump from the comfort of their keyboards.
Sleepless nights and Bro D.
The Ethan outside of your imagination sleeps just fine.
Thank creation for the lovely Mrs E.
Actually, the lovely Mrs. E is due to the Creator. She is the creation. (and a work of art)
But if it helps you cope to imagine I'm tossing and turning in bed racked with termoil, knock yourself out. Reality remains different from your perception and still resides outside your head.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@dustryder
Yeah liberal TDS sufferer, you're always right and your perception is reality. Antifa is a peaceful organization and Biden is lucid.
Your hypocrasy is still sickening.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Bones
No, you're the one who actively searched the forums to see if I gave you some attention
You approached me first begging me to debate you. I told you no, yet here you are, still begging.
I will illustrate the situation like this.
I don't care.
I know you pick and choose what you are capable of replying to...
I still don't care for your illustrations. You are an idiot.
And yet you're running away from the "stupid guy"
So thinks the stupid guy.
...you never acknowledged my post which debunked your BS
The only thing your posts ever debunked was the fantasy that you were smart.
And yet you only reply to the banter, and never the substantive.
Because I don't want to debate you and I find you a trollish idiot. Would you like a quarter to purchase a clue?
...you're the one who actively came back to this week old post...
What, there is a time limit on your turd posts? I have a life shemp. If you don't want to wait, then @ me when you make a post to me.
...actually I was fine to leave
If you were fine to leave, you would have left. But you can't do so now without losing face. So I've got you till your common sense overtakes your shame.
Exactly. You made a claim. I told you to back it up. You said no. End of story.
The more you call me an idiot, the more I challenge you to a debate. Simple as that.
End of story? Yet several pages later, you're still at my heels like a pet Chihuahua. But your story will end, no matter how long your engine is able to run on the fuel of your stupidity.
Wow, I didn't know you cared so much about what I said, to the point where you'll go searching for my words!
I do care.
Thanks pal.
And you thought I was joking when I said I liked trolls and militant idiots.
You like what you are then.
Birds of a feather, shemp.
I'm enjoying burning you very much.
The only thing your burning is your public image.
My image is not the one following me around begging for attention.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@dustryder
Because you assume, like all liberal hypocrites do, that everyone is like you and your Antifa/BLM goons. Jan 6th demonstrators were at their beloved nation's capital, in a crowd of like minded patriots, and happy to be in a country where they could express their political opinions freely. They were friendly and festive. And that is obvious in the videos. It is obvious from the lack of death of any law officers, obvious from no arrests for rebellion or sedition or treason. It is obvious from the FBI report.
You imagine they felt like your Nazi Democrats, burning flags and attacking Innocents, forever outraged and perpetually the victims.
This is why with a straight face you could call the Antifa/BLM riots "mostly peaceful" and call Jan 6th "angry".
I trumped you with evidence you could not address. And as always, you used Ad-hom is a debate tool. You are well know on this board as a hack. One who runs away from questions and is quick to be hyocritical.
When you can address my points, come back and we'll talk. Till then, you can rot in your TDS. Dart is not your safe space. It's for adults.
Created:
Posted in:
Thank you all moderators for keeping this site safe.
For 12 year old boys? You must mean Supa & Chris.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
Hey Village Idiot!
Why would I discuss Christian religion with a fake Christian who has admitted he doesn't follow Jesus?
You're even worse than atheists. Atheists at least are honest about not being followers of Jesus. You blabber about being the only true Christian and then we find out you are a fake. A liar.
I always suspected you were a pseudo-christian. Don't call the name of Jesus with your lying tongue DeeDee. Face your sin, schtick will not save you.
Real Christians follow Jesus, frauds like you hide behind spam.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Outplayz
I'm not really interested in your opinions Outplayz, even ones you pretend are facts. Shall we take a specific passage and discuss it in the light of science?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@dustryder
I leave it simply as "not friendly and festive".
Lol, ok hack.
I'm not a liberal partisan hack, so I cannot ignore all the evidence showing the crowd was festive.
Thank God there is no law against not being friendly and festive, or those demonstrators would have NOT been charged with that too!
Created:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
Hi, village idiot!
Where did I admit and personally say that I don't follow Jesus???!!
When you said Jesus was a racist but you are not. Did you forget DeeDee?
We see, your schtick didn't cover racist contradictions.
If Jesus your Lord is a racist, shouldn't you be too?
Actually, I see several places where you oppose Jesus.
Jesus is smart, you are an imbecile.
Jesus is truthful, you are a filthy liar.
Jesus opposed cults, you are a member of the Landover church, a man made cult.
Hey Mr. Only True Christian, you're looking decidedly fake.
Created:
Posted in:
4 : Exactly. In fact, the claim that the universe started itself violates some of the laws of science. But atheists are quite willing to contradict science in order to keep God out of the picture.
Which laws of science does the claim that the universe started itself violate ?
Causality. Entropy. Life only from life.
71 It may be wrong, but that does not make believing otherwise irrational. Almost every creator is subject to some of the laws their creation is subject to, like the laws of mathematics and the laws of physics.
God is a singularity. He precedes, and is the source of, all laws. Every other "creator" is composed of the same material as his creation, and is not the author of the natural laws governing his creation. God is unique that way. Believing God would be subject to laws He pre-existed and created IS irrational.
Created:
-->
@Ramshutu
No. First, no one asked you to disprove them
You did:
I did not. I am not the OP. I said if you disagree, show how.
I pointed out that the sources were biased...
All sources are biased. And as has been pointed out to you, a bias source can still be correct.
...and the claims could not inherently be relied upon.
That is just a comment. If the arguments for the claims have merit, they can be relied upon, if they do not have merit, they cannot be relied upon. You are supposed to say why you think they do not have merit. Your credulity and calling them biased does not suffice.
I am claiming that one cannot assume their conclusions are reliable
You were to think, not assume.
You do. Opinion offered by Huffpost, MSNBC is regularly rejected as “fake News“, or rejected as having liberal bias.
Correct. And I say why. It is the listener's responsibility to require a reasoned response.
And if someone only posts a link, I think that’s fair. It’s only when someone spends the time and effort to present an argument that yoi should be reasonable expected to debunk it.
Again. Why did you post then?
In this respect there is nothing to engage with.
And yet, you engaged.
Are you saying that if someone offers a link as an argument, I cannot comment on that link?
No. But your comment should be constructive, not petty.
The title of the thread is, "...false narratives and their debunkings"
You apparently read it as, "I debunk false narratives" when the author clearly meant, "I point you to debunkings of false narratives"
Already one responder here has complained that the offered source was "too much". The OP could not post everything here. It would be too much for the average reader.
So, pick a link and discuss that, or pass the thread by. Unexamined claims should neither be rejected or relied upon. You have a brain, use it to evaluate the claim rather than appealing to authority. If you cannot or will not do that, pass the thread by.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Whoo hoo! In 2050 you start to see the fruits of your labor and win the Nobel! Ah, a world where no one thinks men can be women! Too bad I won't be here for it!
Mention me in your acceptance speech, ok?
Mention me in your acceptance speech, ok?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Bones
I bet you were salivating when you realised I have you attention.
I promised you my attention Homer. You tried to run by not @ting me, but you came looking for me, and now you have me.
I never demanded you to debate me.
No, you begged me.
Already refuted.
And yet you're still begging.
You are like a...
No one cares what I am like to you doofus.
No one cares about you...
Except the idiot following me around begging me to notice him. (Corrected for ya)
So now you're the guy who's scared to debate the retard?
Scared or having too much pity. Either or.
And yet here you are still begging me.
I will say it again, your insults only highlight how immature you are.
What did your insults to my mother highlight about you?
What does calling me a retard and running from the opportunity to debate highlight about you?
That I will not take advantage of a clueless retard.
So that makes you the guy cowardly running away from the stupid guy?
To the stupid guy, yes.
So you're the guy who's running from the stupid guy because he thinks he'll lose?
I don't know what the stupid guy thinks. I doubt the stupid guy even thinks.
I would tell you to mature,...
Would telling child rape jokes like you be maturity?
No, but acknowledging when you've been debunked will
Ok. Whenever I'm debunked, I'll acknowledge it and be as mature as you.
I will illustrate the situation like this.
I don't care
I know you don't you're a troll who isn't here for serious conversation
I'm also not here for child rape jokes.
It's no wonder you're confused.
Well how would you know...
I can see your laughable posts.
I don't need to debate you to know that I'm a better debater than you.
Then why are you still following me around begging for a debate? Take your paper crown you gave yourself and go celebrate your "win".
I stated in my very second post to you "Do you want to debate or are you just going to talk your talk?".
And I told you no. But here you are still begging me and claiming to know what no means.
Wow, I didn't know you cared so much about what I said, to the point where you'll go searching for my words!
I do care. I told you pages ago that I like trolls and militant idiots. I'm enjoying burning you very much. I'm here for you child rape jokester.
I will be here for you shemp.
Sorry the word shemp went out of fashion in the 90s.
Who the cap fits, let them wear it.
Created:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
Yes, TRUE Christians follow Jesus,...
But you just told us you do not follow Jesus! Put that shovel down DeeDee, you're in deep enough already.
...therefore have to remain far away from discussing Christianity..
Lol! all of a sudden, our only true Christian doesn't want to discuss Christianity with me. What's wrong DeeDee? Are you stuck on how to get out of the contradiction and save your schtick?
NEXT...
There will be no "next" village idiot. You have only me, and you will face this. You said Jesus is a racist, but you are not. Then you said true Christians follow Jesus.
So I asked you, how can you be a true Christian when you have admitted you don't follow Jesus? You seem to be running DeeDee. Those are YOUR comments.
Come on Mr. Only True Christian Bible scholar. Aren't you the one always spamming about running away? I'm here asking you about your comments. It will be a shame if you run. It'll be hilarious if you do, but a shame too.
Surely your pal Jesus wants you to clear this up. Err, are you and him still on speaking terms? Your disobedience may have caused him to ignore you the way the board ignore you.
What a moron.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@dustryder
Irrelevant to my position
Of course. You always think evidence showing your bias and hypocrasy is "irrelevant" to your position. I happen to disagree. It is relevant.
My position is that the existence of the Hang Mike Pence chanters is contradictory to your claim that the protesters were friendly and festive.
Spin. That is your biased interpretation. I have evidence that the crowd WAS friendly and festive, you want to focus on one tiny thing and interpret the entire crowd by it, ignoring all the other evidence.
So, if, according to you the crowd was neither rebellious or festive, what were they?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
I ACCEPT the idea of a GOD principle.
I care about reality, not your opinions.
I DO NOT BELIEVE in 2000 year old fantasy tales.
How about 6,000 year old fantasies? Or is it the fantasy part causing you to stumble? How about 2,000 year old true tales? Or would the 2,000 years still trip you up?
And Mr Ethan thinks...And so Mr Ethan temporarily presumes to be aware of an external reality.
Mr. E knows that an external reality exists.
Dodgy word belief....Somewhat self-contradicting.
I did not mention the word "belief".
I don't really have the interest to play "engage the narcissist" with you today. You are so self-involved and focused on yourself, you cannot even grasp the concept of something existing outside of you.
Awareness and reality is all between your ears Mr E.
No Sir. Awareness is, reality is not. You have been fed that liberal nonsense for do long, that you now believe it's truth. But when both you and I no longer exist, reality will continue to exist right where it's always been, NOT between our ears.
I know concepts like this can be scary for a liberal indoctrinated to super glue focus on his feelings, but reality doesn't care one iota about your awareness or belief.
Created:
-->
@Ramshutu
@HistoryBuff
If I link to a list of nonsensical articles from a ridiculous source, will you feel the necessity of trying to disprove all of them?
No. First, no one asked you to disprove them. You were supposed to give your pov and support for it. Or pick a single link and say something about why you agree or disagree. Otherwise, why are you in this thread?
Second, how do you know the articles are non-sensical if you didn't read them? If I were to follow your standard, I would without discussion dismiss any liberal here quoting CNN, Huffpost, or MSNBC as offering nonsensical ridiculous sources. By coming to a debate website, you imply you at least intend to listen to viewpoints different than your own.
I seriously doubt you would waste your time doing that.
I would, and I do. I tolerate loony liberal nonsense all the time for the sake of argument. If you will only engage political views that agree with your own, you're pretty much useless here.
His source is basically a white supremacist website. I have much better things to do with my time than try to explain to a blatant racist why his racism is wrong. He will never see what he is doing as racist. Probably because he doesn't see racism as a problem.
If your views are so right and those with different views are hopeless, why did you bother to post here? Go and do those things you think are much better. The rest of us wish to debate, and not just leftist Pollyanna topics either.
The OP did no work, made no effort and presented no argument.
Then other than a petty gripe, why did you post?
Stop being disingeneous. If you don't wish to read the links, fine, but if you have nothing to offer, don't post either.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@EtrnlVw
Zeddy probably thinks that when it's the God he dreams up, it's real. I mean, if he believes his awareness and reality are the same thing,...
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
This will shock you Zeddy, but....
No brain...Nothing....Zilch.
Is untrue. Reality existed before your brain, and will continue to exist after your brain. So...
No brain... Reality...still exists.
Reality is far too big to exist between your ears Zed. That is just liberal nonsense you guys believe because it was fed to you young and no one around you ever question the illogic of it. You now think it's true.
But at least you have a finely washed brain. No smelly old rational arguments there!
Created:
-->
@Ramshutu
Just to reiterate, you have posted a number of links as if they are authoritative. I have presented a number of key reasons why the authority you give to these link is not justified.
Thus far, you have given no reason why I should accept the authority, and in the absence of a good reason why I should accept these arguments as credible - there is no argument left for me to argue against: as you have made no other argument.
Your implicit demand that I must accept what these sources say, is therefore “shifting the burden of proof”.
Just stop with the fakery. He has not demanded that you accept anything. Where is your brain? Why do you need to accept their authority in order to evaluate their arguments? Can you not think for yourself?
What does it matter who the man is if what he is saying is right or wrong? He is asking you to think for yourself. But obviously being out of the herd makes you uncomfortable.
Yeesh.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Pat yourself on the back. That's pretty good.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@dustryder
I denied that the chant made the crowd rebellious. I did this by showing you video of the crowd being friendly and festive. I had supporting facts that the crowd was not an insurrection, and that no one was arrested for rebellion or insurrection.
I gave you examples of crowds (Antifa/BLM) that were actually rebellious and actually violent with their chants. Your position is that the "Hang Mike Pence" means the crowd was rebellious. That is your interpretation. Spin. And it disagrees with all the other incidents that day.
There is nothing more I can say to you if actual videos do not make you admit the truth. Follow your MSM talking points. It's no wonder you could not answer a single question in my posts.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
There is your awareness, and there is reality.
Absolutely, perhaps probably true, maybe.
Certainly true. Proof? When you die, the universe (reality) will continue to remain.
But your awareness of anything is only in the one place.
So?
Between your ears Mr E.
But what does your awareness have to do with reality? Nothing.
And that's the only place your reality is too.
Untrue. That is where my awareness is, that is not where reality is. You are confused because liberal dogma conflates human awareness with reality.
This is why a liberal man can announce he has become a woman, because he thinks his thoughts are what decides his gender. Reality slaps down liberals every day, and they just go right on believing nonsense till reality forces them to either pretend their position never existed (it was Republicans who wanted to defund the police!) or rationalize it away. (Yes, but a human baby is not a person)
I'm talking about reality. Not our awareness. Reality existed before there was humankind, and does not need human awareness to exist.
I know these ideas are scary for a liberal, but baby steps. You'll be fine.
Created: