The final nail in evolution’s coffin.

Ken Ham’s got us.  After years of arguments that make pretensions to being scientifically valid have been defeated time and time again, he’s pulling out the big guns.  It turns out that the bible says nature proves god’s existence.  Checkmate, atheists.

  • Dave Muscato

    Oh no! I’m shaking in my boots!

  • unbound55

    Hudson: That’s it man, game over man, game over! What the fuck are we gonna do now? What are we gonna do?

    Burke: Maybe we could build a fire, sing a couple of songs, huh? Why don’t we try that?

    • Brudder

      “You secure that shit, Hudson!”

      • Booker Dewitt

        “We’re doomed! We’re FUCKED”
        Hudson

    • Nerfenstein

      Unbound55… I registered with Disqus purely to reply to you. BEST RESPONSE EVER! Nukes all the others from orbit. Well played my friend.

  • Alex S

    Gahhh! We’re done for!

  • SJHoneywell

    Some people are simply too stupid to be worth correcting. Ken Ham has achieved that level of stupid. It’s almost (almost, mind you) awe-inspiring.

    • Gunner Miller

      “too stupid to be worth correcting” is right, but remember that his livelihood depends on being stupid on this subject. He can’t afford to learn anything. This is forced stupidity in all of its glory.

      • Mickelodian

        To come up with holes in science you have to first understand the science, then understand that others don’t, then come up with your plan on stating only the bits you can use.

        For example Hams website points out that an aircraft was found in the Ice in Greenland several hundred feet it had been covered in only 50 years…and that is absolutely correct.

        He then goes on to say this demonstrates Ice cores don’t represent a long time … because several hundred feet of snow and ice mounted up in 50 years!

        But he knows enough of course to know that Ice Cores are not drilled in moving glaciers… nor for the most part in the northern hemisphere but rather the Antarctic…the other side of the world!

        He knows that, because he had to know it to build a hole his audience would believe… but his audience don’t know it… and he knows his audience don’t know it, and are very unlikely to find out anything about it.

    • Leafs Destroy

      Stupid Level: Guru

  • Pofarmer

    Can’t we send Ken Ham back to Australia or wherever they ran him off from?

    • Spuddie

      Why punish Australia like that?

      • C.L. Honeycutt

        By the other side’s own “punish the mother” logic, it makes perfect sense.

    • Looweez69

      No, you can’t. I’m Australian and we definitely DON’T want him back. Not even if you promise to exchange him for Fred Nile and the entire Australian Christian Lobby.

    • cipher

      It’s been suggested numerous times. They won’t take him.

  • Spuddie

    It is comforting to claim Ken Ham is just ignorant. That would assume that if he is exposed to enough information to the contrary, he might change his view.

    The reality is he knows his ideas are full of shit but continues anyway. Not ignorant, just a liar. Its very profitable for him to keep releasing this bullshit.

    No Creationist actually believes in Creationism. Its all a scam. Creationists like to claim their religious belief is not based on faith, but on evidence collected. When you call them on their bullshit evidence, they always fall back on saying they really believe because of faith.

    • Beth Purkhiser

      Oh there are plenty of Creationists who believe in Creationism unfortunately. They just aren’t the ones making a ton of money from it.

      • Spuddie

        Nah, they say that in public but its pure bullcrap. Sincerity being a function of self-deception at best.

        Creationism is all about pretending one does not need faith to accept Fundamentalist Christianity. The premise being that they have all of this proof that can be shown to the public that the Bible is correct. That their religious belief must be accepted because of all the evidence they present.

        But when they finally stop the lies and phony arguments they all admit their belief is based entirely on faith. Creationism being a sham to bully people into acceptance of their faith based belief.

        Once you get a creationist to admit their religious belief is based on faith, they have shot their own argument down.

        • Beth Purkhiser

          The pure bullcrap is creationism itself – not that they believe it. Trust me, plenty of them passionately believe that bullcrap, including members of my own family. I don’t think Ham, Hovind or Comfort actually believe what they’re selling though. For them it’s a lucrative business.

          • unbound55

            I agree completely. The leaders of creationism (and most religions) understand that they are selling BS, but the masses don’t get it.

            The leaders are rolling in the dough due to the deception. The followers don’t get the joke is on them, or there wouldn’t be all the money flowing to the leaders.

          • Spuddie

            They are passionate about their religious belief and their faith. They will say anything in support of that faith, no matter how ridiculous. It is never the evidence that the Creationists bring to the table which convinces them. They come pre-convinced thanks to faith. Self-deception.

            But they desperately try to avoid taking Creationism to its logical conclusion. That they are really denying faith when they take the position. Creationism doesn’t work if you actually bother to think it through.

          • Beth Purkhiser

            I believe you are greatly underestimating the power of some people’s capacity to tolerate cognitive dissonance. I agree that it’s always religiously motivated reasoning that attracts them to creationism. But some are also massively ignorant of real science – they really do believe science backs up creationism and not evolution.

          • Spuddie

            But you will never see a Creationist spokesperson, someone addressing people outside of their circle, admit that they don’t give a flying crap about the evidence they present. That its all just a sop towards their faith. They openly deny their faith to others and claim the evidence is convincing enough to be taken seriously. The whole point of Ham, Hovind or Comfort is to be taken seriously by those outside of Fundamentalist Christianity.

            But their rank and file take the opposite approach. They don’t care about credibility among those outside of their own. They don’t really know (or care) what evidence is there as long as it supports the faith. When push comes to shove, they will drop pretenses of knowing about science admit they are motivated by faith. Despite the fact their leaders deny it. Pure cognitive dissonance mixed with ignorance.

          • el_loco_the_insane

            If the big proponents of creationism ever for a second believed what they were spewing they would realize that the book they hold up as evidence is explicitly telling them to quit making money by selling ‘truth’ in the temples and praying on the street-corners … some people who follow them might actually believe them due to cognitive dissonance and a need to ‘validate’ their beliefs through more then just ‘I hope it’s true’ which is as far as faith can ever bring them … but the ones selling creationism cannot possibly believe it … not for a second …

    • Lurker111

      Among the leadership, surely. I once asked myself who the top 10 atheists of the world were, and I concluded that you could make a pretty good start on the list with The Pope and the 9 other top religious leaders of the world.

      • Steve Willy

        I hope that lying to yourself and making shit up out of thin air helps you sleep at night.

    • Mickelodian

      I agree, as soon as you began to try protect the idea and done any amount of digging…especially the quantity Ham has done, you’d realise it was utter rubbish.

      The final recourse is to run off claiming ‘faith’ or in some cases ‘we don’t care even if we can demonstrate the science to ourselves, we will still refuse to accept it’ which is a nuclear form of delusion I have a problem even contemplating.

  • GubbaBumpkin

    Hey, no problem. I’ve got a book in my hands that tells me the Bible is false.
    Checkmate, Christians.

    • Steve Willy

      I think you tacitly know that its time for you to stfu, you Hitchens-Dawkins parroting basement dwelling neck bearded megadouche. Yours is a petty, trivial, localized, earth bound philosophy, unworthy of the universe. Search your heart, you know this to be true.

      • Compuholic

        Lol. You sure told us. But what do you really think?

      • David Manhart

        Must suck to have your beliefs proven wrong over and over and over and over and over and over… etc…

      • closetatheist

        god must have purposely hardened their hearts, you know, like he did to so many others? cause his ultimate purpose for the majority of his beloved creation is eternal torture – which, I’m compelled to agree, is a philosophy entirely suited for this awesome, incomprehensibly beautiful and vast universe…/end of sarcasm.

        and I’ll never understand how christians can reconcile their belief that the heart of man is evil, yet they believe everyone will find god if they search their own heart? is this evidence that god is actually evil? makes sense I guess.

        • Maxximiliann

          You misapprehend. Jehovah “let [Pharaoh’s] heart wax bold” -Exodus 7:3 (Rotherham)

          The appendix to Rotherham’s translation shows that in Hebrew the occasion or permission of an event is often presented as if it were the cause of the event, and that “even positive commands are occasionally to be accepted as meaning no more than permission.” Thus at Exodus 1:17 the original Hebrew text literally says that the midwives “caused the male children to live,” whereas in reality they permitted them to live by refraining from putting them to death. After quoting Hebrew scholars M. M. Kalisch, H. F. W. Gesenius, and B. Davies in support, Rotherham states that the Hebrew sense of the texts involving Pharaoh is that “God permitted Pharaoh to harden his own heart—spared him—gave him the opportunity, the occasion, of working out the wickedness that was in him. That is all.”—The Emphasised Bible, appendix, p. 919 (cf. Isa 10:5-7)

          Corroborating this understanding is the fact that the record definitely shows that Pharaoh himself “hardened his heart.” (Exodus 8:15, 32, KJ; “made his heart unresponsive,” NWT) He thus exercised his own will and followed his own stubborn inclination, the results of which inclination Jehovah accurately foresaw and predicted. (Exodus 8:30-32; 9:34,35) The repeated opportunities given him by Jehovah obliged Pharaoh to make decisions, and in doing so he became hardened in his attitude. (cf. Ecclesiastes 8:11, 12.) As the apostle Paul shows by quoting Exodus 9:16, Jehovah allowed the matter to develop in this way to the full length of ten plagues in order to make manifest his own power and cause his name to be made known earth wide.—Romans 9:17, 18.

    • David Manhart

      And if any christian demands you produce the book, make them prove you DON’T have it.

    • Scott Wallace

      Yeah, Gubba, but Ken has that nice woman telling us at the end that Answers in Genesis has the answers. Not much you can say to that, is there?

  • baal

    The bible is the final nail in the coffin of evolution? I keep hoping they come up with something new, different or at least compelling. The bible is the definition of ‘same old’.

    That which proves everything proves nothing.

  • EvolutionKills

    Think that’s impressive?

    BEHOLD! Proof for the existence of SPIDER-MAN!

    Your move Ken Ham.

    • Zinc Avenger

      I’m convinced. Where do I send the tithes?

      • G Wiz

        I’ll send you my address…

        • David Manhart

          Your god is false!!! My god is real.. All bow down to the Great Spaghetti Monster!

    • # zbowman

      This is so old, it’s using ‘teen ager’ as two words. Clearly it contains truthiness in concentrations unattainable by modern, sinful books.

    • Jim Craig

      I can also prove that Harry Potter, Bilbo Baggins and Kilgore Trout are real using the same method.

      In fact, I have a book written by Kilgore Trout. Does Hamm have one written by Jesus?

      • baal

        Well, Kilgore Trout was a pseudonym for Philip José Farmer who upset Kurt Vonnegut by using the name of one of the later’s characters as an author name.

        • Steve Willy

          Maybe if Vonnegut had not been a neck bearded megadouche, he would not have been bothered by something so trivial. Proof positive that atheism makes you an azzwhole. And a neck bearded megadouhe

          • David Manhart

            Why are you accusing others of your own behavior? Oh yes.. You are so accustomed to being so much of a hypocrite all the time it is now innate.

    • Eldergothfather

      LOL and there is also proof of the existence of the Grinch…Ken Ham, step off.

  • Gehennah

    You know, before I got into it with a bunch of creationalists on JaclynGlenn’s latest video (its amazing) I didn’t think many people actually took Answers in Genesis seriously. It was scary what I saw.

  • katiehippie

    That’s it? One minute worth?

  • Shit Bird

    if the bible is proof that god exists then does that mean Lord of The Rings proves that Hobbits are real?

    • Maxximiliann

      How, then, do you explain these? http://bit.ly/1d0Y82v

      • http://metalgear.wikia.com/wiki/FOXHOUND Shitbird

        People wrote vague shit that could easily be applied to just about any time in human History. how’d that whole 2012 apocalypse work out for ya by the way?

        • Maxximiliann

          How do you mean? I don’t follow.

          • http://metalgear.wikia.com/wiki/FOXHOUND Shitbird

            An example of a well known “prophecy” that would fit well as an analogy that is vague and completely open to interpretation would be the following from Nostradamus:

            “Earthshaking fire from the center of the Earth
            Will cause tremors around the New City.
            Two great rocks will war for a long time,
            Then Arethusa will redden a new river.”

            These quotes are often poetic, and cryptic and can be easily applied to just about any natural disaster, would essentially be the point that I was making.

            My main point from my original post however (while mainly was intended to poke a little fun, and one made over 2 months ago) is essentially that for people like myself, those who are non believers, trying to claim that anything from the bible is “proof” or evidence will be scoffed at. To people like me, quoting the bible is by no means the final nail in the coffin for evolution, it’s not even the first nail in the coffin…there is no coffin, the physical/scientific evidence for evolution is vast and specific, while any “proof” I’ve ever heard of god was from a hundred-time edited several thousand year old book written by goat herders.

          • Maxximiliann

            I was referring to the Bible, not Nostradamus. What Bible prophecies are sufficiently vague as to be completely open to interpretation? Do you at least have one example?

          • baal

            Joe, now that you’ve admitted that you think Nostradamus wrote the Bible, could you provide some proof of that? I won’t accept your vague contradictory statements nor any assertions that I didn’t read what you wrote. Keep in mind that your projections create painful mirror shocks for you.

          • http://metalgear.wikia.com/wiki/FOXHOUND Shitbird

            I was using his prophecy as an analogy, referring to the notion of all prophecy. I also think you may misunderstand what vague means. A vague quote that can be applied to different times in history is as such because it can be interpreted in different ways depending on the bias of it’s reader. A quick google search yields endless examples of vague bible quotes.

            here’s a site for you to harass on the matter
            http://pay2cem.hubpages.com/hub/Epic-Bible-Fails-Top-10-Failed-Prophecies

            This will be the end of my input in the conversation as it has already escalated further than I had ever intended, months after my original response. The only reason why I’m seeing this at all is because I keep getting emails from disquis that you responded to me, and I return out of sheer morbid curiosity.

          • Maxximiliann

            A poor one at that. That you fail to provide a specific example from the Bible is quite telling. Polly wanna cracker?

  • Alan Duval

    Ken Ham:
    Denies evolution…
    …looks like a Barbary Ape.

  • more compost

    I finally understand! I get why they believe the universe is only six thousand years old!

    These idiots have no idea whatsoever what “proof” or “evidence” mean. No wonder they believe in a book of fairy tales as if it were true.

  • Looweez69

    I also wish to meet the Ravenous Bugblatter Beast of Traal. Douglas Adams says it exists, and I want to see if it is REALLY as stupid as Ken Ham.

  • http://www.sanderson.co.nz/Artist/139/Paul-Martinson.aspx Paul Martinson

    of course DNA >shaped like the Spaghetti Monster . Undeniable proof, Pasta rules the world.

  • g75401

    Love it, observing nature was Darwin’s reasoning behind evolution. So, in essence, the phenomena explained by evolution disproves evolution. Got it. Meanwhile, I’m still waiting for a reply to an email I sent Ben Carson that basically said, if you believe each species originated de novo, how can you ethically apply treatments tested on monkeys, dogs, and rats to humans?

  • Jairo Melo Graue Wolf

    I have the proof about evolution, is in a book is called “The Origin of the Species”

    • john Catao

      i have bigger proof of evolution. Most of the time i behave more like a MONKEY than a human! Now if that’s not a proof we are from monkeys then what is!

  • Looweez69

    Go forth and bring me my hippogriff, minions!! JK Rowling says they exist and I want to ride one, goddammit!!

  • Steve Willy

    Wow, JT, you have really opened my eyes. You make some powerful points, except, well … let’s put the Hitchens-Dawkins Kool-Aid down for a while and look at reality: Kalaam Cosmological Argument, the Argument from Reason, Fine Tuning of Universal Constants, irreducible biological complexity, the argument from morality…. Your entire world view lies shattered at your feet. If you truly honor the gods of reason and critical thinking half as much as you claim, you would plant your face firmly into your hand, step away from the device, find a quiet place, and rethink your life.
    Indeed, why are you even bothering to comment at all? No atheistic position can be taken seriously until two threshold questions can coherently be answered. 1. Why is the atheist even engaging in the debate. On atheism, there is no objective basis for even ascertaining truth; there is no immaterial aspect to consciousness and all mental states are material. Therefore, everyone who ever lived and ever will live could be wrong about a thing. By what standard would that ever be ascertained on atheism? Also if atheism is true, there is no objective meaning to existence and no objective standard by which the ‘rational’ world view of atheism is more desirable, morally or otherwise, to the ‘irrational’ beliefs of religion. Ridding the world of the scourge of religion, so that humanity can ‘progress’ or outgrow it, is not a legitimate response to this because on atheism, there is no reason to expect humanity to progress or grow. We are a historical accident that should fully expect to be destroyed by the next asteriod, pandemic, or fascist atheist with a nuke. In short, if atheism is correct, there is no benefit, either on an individual or societal level, to knowing this or to spreading such ‘knowledge.’
    2. Related to this, why is the atheist debater even alive to participate. If there is no heaven, no hell, no afterlife at all, only an incredibly window of blind pitiless indifference, then the agony of struggling to exist, seeing loved ones die, and then dying yourself can never be outweighed by any benefit to existing. As rude as it way sound (and I AM NOT advocating suicide) the atheist should have a coherent explanation for why they chose to continue existing. Failure to adequately address these threshold questions should result in summary rejection of the neckbeard’s position.

    In the end, we all know you can’t answer these questions because yours is a petty, trivial, localized, earth bound philosophy, unworthy of the universe.

    Finally, is there a basement dwelling troll left in the multiverse who doesn’t drag themselves out of the primordial ooze and logged onto this site in order to announce our collective atheism towards Thor, that gardens can be beautiful without fairies (a powerful rebuttal to fairy apologetics, by the way, but it leaves a lot unanswered about the Gardener), and that we cling to Bronze Age skymen due to our fear of the dark? Let me translate that to neckbeard: you are unoriginal, you are wrong, and you are an ass.

    • Am

      I enjoyed your post. However what is [a] “neckbeard”?

      • baal

        I actually bothered to look this up. It’s when you grow out the beard part that happens to be on your neck. It’s like a lion’s mane only on below. He means it in the urbandictionary sense, however. That’d be a person who lives in their mother’s basement and see showers as optional. Unfortunately, like many other trolls and name callers, Steve “the neckbeard” Willy is incapable of understanding irony or projection and is the prototypical example of a neckbeard himself.

      • phantomreader42

        He thinks it’s a magical incantation for banishing atheists. He’s too stupid to notice that it hasn’t worked, and only makes him look like an idiot. Well, slightly MORE of an idiot than is already obvious from his chanting of the names of shitty arguments that he is incapable of justifying.

    • Mickelodian

      The ‘Kalaam Cosmological Argument’ would work of course if its first and primary premises were accurate or axiomatic .. but since their not then they need to be tweaked…

      Thats what William Lane Craig done in order to relaunch the idea… he essentially added a premise… a premise which is not axiomatic and certainly not true logically.

      When the paradox of where the God came from is entered into Craig just stated that everything that has beginning has a cause…. which does nothing for the argument because a premise must be accurate…how does Craig know his god had no beginning… I doubt he understand how time works in this universe…or causality .. and from the point of view of physics everything (even things in this universe right now that have a beginning) don’t require and have been demonstrated not to have a cause…so that’s that out of the window.

      I think the problem here is you are arguing 12th century knowledge of causality to a 21st century audience. Bit late to the party perhaps?

      Bottom line is events do NOT in fact need a chronological cause be they gods or subatomic particles….. we perceive things that way because we see it happen all day long, but we can only perceive time personally in a linear fashion… and the thinkers who came up with the KCA didn’t have either the math or technology to realise it was not a requirement.

      The actual laws of this universe however do not prohibit retrocausality, ergo back to the drawing board with your Kaalam model!

      So as it turns out the very first premise in the KCA is wrong…and has been known to be wrong a long time! Which is the very reason Craig tried to modify it, because horrified he realised he had to move God out of the way of it…

    • Mickelodian

      On your other point of ‘biological irreducible complexity’ and the fine tuning of the universe etc. I point you to any book on logic for the later…since you are the guy here looking a a map in a shopping mall trying to work out how the red dot on the map that says ‘You are here’ knew where you would be!

      Irreducible complexity is another way of saying ‘utter rubbish’ since you can say it, but not point to anything in the entire universe you know to be Irreducibly complex.

      The same way I can say ‘one ended stick’ but saying it does not make it real, or even possible! Fact is nothing is irreducibly complex because all form rises from chaos…simple as that. All complexity is a result of the fact that chaos its chaotic and therefore will always favour complexity. I can even show you how to demonstrate that to yourself, all you’ll need is a piece of paper and a pencil… and it could have been demonstrated 10k years ago, but wasn’t. Odd are though you won’t want to see designed forms springing from complexity…

      • Steve Willy

        Thanks for defining neckbeard for me, through your pseudo-intellectual, blathering regurgitation of neck bearded mantras. It save me the trouble of answering AM, you Hitchens-Dawkins parroting basement dwelling megadouche. I hope sophomore philosophy goes well for you this semester.

        • Jasper

          Professor Willy, we need your help!

          We’ve detected a squardon of megadouches inbound, armed to the teeth with neckbeards. You’re our only hope!

        • Mickelodian

          Pseudo-intellectual?.. lol I think 25 years in a university 15 of those teaching shit you haven’y got the grey matter to even contemplate or define let alone understand begs to differ there.

          Now, kindly fuck off it gave me a headache last time to read your drivel and try to respond in a language you might understand., clearly I was wrong and should have uploaded a picture for you to color in!

          • JohnH2

            So Steve Willy copy and pastes things. I am not entirely sure that he isn’t a bot, I think that a bot would likely make more sense and be more civil seems to argue against him being a bot, but I could be wrong

          • Steve Willy

            Maybe if you stepped outside the ivory tower and did something (besides coming up with more creative ways to hide your logical fallacies), you would have a point. Or was I supposed to say, “wow, you’re so smart AND and atheist? I guess gods are imaginary after all.”?

          • RobMcCune

            You’re right, it’s not good as the steve willy argument:

            Wow! You mean you’re a NECKBEARD BASEMENT ULTRADOUCE SPAMBOT, and a theist, I guess that means there is a god after all.

          • Guest

            If you are actually a university professor, and you truly honor the gods of reason and logic half as much as you claim —- indeed, if you believe in anything beyond your own solipsistic hedonism — then you would recognize a moral obligation to place your face into your palm, IMMEDIATELY resign from your position, find a quiet place, and rethink your life. Your comments here demonstrate beyond a shadow of a doubt that you cannot possibly be doing a ser ice to your students, nor can you possibly be doing legitimate scholarzhip.

          • Steve Willy

            If you are actually a university professor and you truly honor the gods of reason and logic half as much as you claim — indeed, if you believe in anything beyond your own solipsistic hedonism — then you would recognize a moral obligation to place your face into your palm, IMMEDIATELY resign from your position, find a quiet place, and rethink your life. Your comments here demonstrate beyond a shadow of a doubt that you cannot possibly be doing a service to your students nor can you possibly be doing legitimate scholarship. You are nothing but a sophomoric, Hitchens-Dawkins parroting basement dwelling megadouche who happens to wrap his pseudo-intellectual musing in some sort of a degree, and are using that degree to force your neck bearded ‘values’ on people who are not in a position to disagree.

          • islandbrewer

            NECK BEARD!

            Now post your same three catholic website links and screech “Cosmological Argument” so I can call bingo, Mr. Neckbeard Chatbot.

          • baal

            This is the same complaint you pasted on me. And here I thought I was special to you and it turns out you’re using the same insults on other nice atheists? Did you at least wear gloves when you were posting the same things to them? Did they weep as softly as I did? Did you get them the same xmas card and thoughtfully tasteful yet decadent panties on their birthday. It’s like I don’t know you any more.

          • RobMcCune

            Steve Willy’s gods of douche and neckbeard give him the moral obligation to yell incoherently at those who do not worship at his temple of basement dwelling and recite the holy prayers copy/pasta insults.

          • Steve Willy

            I think you tacitly know that its time for you to stfu, you Hitchens-Dawkins parroting basement dwelling megadouche. Yours is a petty, trivial, localized, earth bound philosophy, unworthy of the universe.

          • baal

            Steve Willy’s neckbeard poisons everything.

            By all means let’s be neckbearded, but not so neckbearded that our brains drop out.

            We are all neckbearded about most of the Steve Willys that societies have ever believed in. Some of us just go one Steve Willys further.

            There may be neckbeard at the bottom of the garden. There is no evidence for it, but you can’t prove that there aren’t any, so shouldn’t we be agnostic with respect to neckbeards?

            I learned that very often the most intolerant and narrow-minded neckbearded and Steve Willy people are the ones who congratulate themselves on their tolerance and
            open-mindedness.

            I’ve had some dark nights of the neckbeard, of course, but giving in to Steve’s willy would be a sellout, a defeat.

            You lie shattered at my feet – Baal

          • RobMcCune

            Mindless spambot steve willy parrots a neckbeard response written into his ultradouce.xml file by his basement-dwelling lonely christian programmer.

          • islandbrewer

            You forgot the gratuitous “neckbeard” and link spam. You also forgot to utter phrases such as “Kalam Cosmological Argument!” like some sort of incantation against the evil atheists.

        • Mickelodian

          Also I notice I made an offer there to demonstrate complexity (and quite a lot of it) arising spontaneously from simplicity (one rule in fact) and you decided you didn’t want to know anything about that…why is that not a fucking surprise ehh?

          You know the last time I showed that (on two occasions now) to people who mouth on about irreducible complexity bot of them shut up… one guy sat there for ten minute staring at the paper… then told me to fuck off and marched off…clearly seen something he didn’t like… but thats reality for you… it won’t change to suit your fantasies.

          • Steve Willy

            Every argument about complexity arising spontaneously from simplicity (nature) presupposes that which it attempts to prove – that the very simplicity (nature) that gave rise to the complex was not itself designed. That is why it warrants no serious response. And that is what makes the argument’s proponents pseudo-intellectual douchers.

          • RobMcCune

            REFUSING TO UNDERSTAND COUNTERARUGMENTS IS WHAT MAKES STEVE WILLY REAL INTELLECTUAL!!!!111!! FALSIFIABILITY IS NECKBERD MADE OF NEKCBEARD!11!!!

      • Maxximiliann

        Science tells us that life prohibiting universes are vastly more probable than life permitting ones.

        Concordantly,

        1. The fine-tuning of the initial conditions of the universe are due to either physical necessity, chance or deliberate design.

        2. It is not due to either physical necessity or chance.

        3. Therefore, it is due to deliberate design.

        Now, mind you, order is not the sole issue. It’s the conformity to an independently given pattern plus high improbability. It’s what makes a distinct signal unmistakable from random white noise. Such arrangements of multiple interconnected component parts or elements in a series of steps followed in a regular definite order to effectuate a task, objective, intent or function (ordered complexity) betrays the presence of an intelligent mind.

        This is why trying to use “poof” (blind chance)% to explain the absurdly small compound probability of independent events giving us a life sustaining universe is just naked, irrational sophism.

        %“It is our contention that if ‘random’ [chance] is given a serious and crucial interpretation from a probabilistic point of view, the randomness postulate is highly implausible and that an adequate scientific theory of evolution must await the discovery and elucidation of new natural laws, physical, chemical and biological.” -“Inadequacies of Neo-Darwinian Evolution as a Scientific Theory”, Dr. Murray Eden, MIT

        “There is no chance (<10-1000) to see [evolution based on mutation and natural selection] appear spontaneously and, if it did, even less for it to remain. Thus, to conclude, we believe there is a considerable gap in the Neo-Darwinian Theory of evolution, and we believe this gap to be of such a nature that it cannot be bridged within the current conception of biology.” -“Algorithms and the Neo-Darwinian Theory of Evolution,” Marcel P. Schutzenberger, University of Paris (Bracket mine.)

        This multiplicity of probabilities on top of probabilities on top of probabilities on top of probabilities perfectly illustrates the mind-boggling probability of our universe ending up with the perfect mix and ratios of life permitting constants by pure chance.

        Your argument would make it reasonable for a person who stumbles upon a copy of “Hamlet” to assume it is the product of an infinite number of monkeys in an infinite number of universes banging away copies at an infinite number of typewriters of texts produced by another infinite set of monkeys in another set of infinite universes baning away with their infinite number of typewriters instead of simply concluding “Shakespeare.”

        When you hear hoofbeats, why think unicorns?

    • islandbrewer

      Get thee behind me, Neckbeard!

    • Anna Hayward

      Actually, if we’re being pedantically correct, atheism means “no gods”. So you can be a rationalist atheist and not believe in anything ‘supernatural’, but you could be a Buddhist atheist, or a spiritualist atheist, or a pagan atheist… or even a Quaker atheist! In fact, just because you don’t believe in gods doesn’t mean you don’t believe all manner of other un-provable ideas.

      To quote (somebody famous), atheism is no more a belief than not collecting stamps is a hobby. There are many hobbies that don’t involve collecting stamps, just as there are many belief systems (or lack of them) that are ‘atheist’.

      But IMHO there is a world of difference between saying “I believe this even though I can’t prove it” and fundamentalist idiocy.

      • Steve Willy

        I suppose if such a person existed, they would be an exception to my rule. One could conceivably be a gay athesitic existential Hitlerist with Zen Buddhist influences. But your point is so theoretical as to be irrelevant. Back on Earth, 98.7% of atheists and 99.3% of the megadouchers who comment here are balls to the wall material reductionists and loving it. They have to be, for if they entertain a single non- material reductionist thought for one second, the entire edifice of Neckbeardom comes crashing down.

        • Anna Hayward

          I’m an atheist Buddhist (aka Secular Buddhist). I adhere to a lot of the principles, meditate etc. but I don’t worship any gods or anything. Technically speaking, most Buddhists are atheists as they don’t believe in a creator god, and the ‘deities’ are not necessarily considered literal, more metaphorical, but some are more secular than others.

          I have plenty of friends who are atheist but have ‘spiritual’ beliefs of one sort or another, as well as many atheist Buddhist friends.

          None of my friends are Nazis as far as I know, even the Zen ones ;)

          What we have in common with yourself is that we also think the fundamentalist Creationists and Intelligent Design folks are nuts, plus ill-educated.

    • phantomreader42

      You can’t even be bothered to make shitty arguments, you just regurgitate the names of other people’s shitty arguments without including any content, as if those names are magical incantations. Just as with your chanting of “neckbeard”, the incantations don’t work, but you’re apparently too stupid to notice that.

      The shitty arguments you can’t be bothered to even try justifying have already been dealt with, so your worldview lies shattered at your feet, even if you’re too dishonest to admit it. So I won’t bother refuting that idiocy again, since you won’t acknowledge it anyway.

      But why don’t YOU shoot YOURSELF in the face, brain-dead-troll-formerly-known-as-Thorgasm? Why should anyone feel the need to justify their life to you? You’re just a delusional spammer who can’t even pretend to make a meaningful argument! YOU are the one who is projecting your own utter worthlessness onto everyone else. You don’t know anything about anyone, but you delude yourself into thinking you’re qualified to advocate suicide (and yes, that IS what you are doing, you lying sack of shit) because the only reason you haven’t put a bullet through your tiny brain is that you’re waiting for the voices in your head to give you permission to slaughter the infidels and bathe in their blood. News flash, asshole, not everyone is as stupid, lazy, dishonest, hateful, willfully ignorant and miserable as your sick death cult makes you.

      In addition to the obvious fact that they aren’t true, your religious delusions have not made you honest, or kind, or smart, or happy, or moral. So what the fuck are they good for?

  • Matthew Rees

    Fuckwit

  • Leave the bats in peace

    So he’s saying that the clear evidence that god doesn’t exist proves that god exists? This guy is so desperate. Perhaps he’s an existentialist parallel universalist?

  • Noah Simoneaux

    “let’s put the Hitchens-Dawkins Kool-Aid down for a while and look at reality:” And then he mentions all the lame arguments theists have tried to use to “prove” any gods exist. You shouldn’t mention reality and apologetics in the same sentence.

    • Mickelodian

      Theists see reality as what goes on in their head… they don’t see it as something separate from themselves. If its reality to them, then that means its reality for everyone and even inanimate objects. The less knowledge they have personally the simpler reality is to understand…there’s simply less of it!

      I demonstrated Cellular automata once to a guy from Nigeria and a staunch brainwashed Christian. He had insisted every design needs a designer.

      I asked him first to write a random sequence of 1′s and 0′s out…then went through the process with him…iterated it on squared paper manually… than asked him who designed it.

      You could have blown him over with a feather!

      finally I asked him if ‘all designs required a designer?’ … I think he was moments away from crying.

      • Steve Willy

        The answer was you designed the sequence you stupid f*ng doucher when you told him what to write. This proves nothing except that you re the sort of man who would try to trick someone who probably had a tough time getting a formal education and probably had to fight to near death for the freedom to even be a Christian – only to have some pseudo-intellectual hand-waver try to trick him out of it. You should be ashamed. “Without God, all things are permissible.” Even this shit apparently.

      • Matt D

        Good, perhaps some tears will wash away the blood from the victims of Christianity over there.

      • Joseph O Polanco

        Interesting. Can you proffer an example of a coding system that’s arisen through non-sentient, naturalistic processes?

        • baal

          DNA?

          Was this supposed to be hard?

          • Joseph O Polanco

            Prove it.

          • islandbrewer

            Shift goal posts, much? You prove it wasn’t.

          • Joseph O Polanco

            Stalker much?

          • Fred

            This from the scumsucking shithead that followed someone from another blog after they were banned and attempted to re-engage them in a totally different blog?

            It’s like you don’t think your words are there for everyone to read.

          • Joseph O Polanco

            Argumentum ad passiones. Just because your posturing is riddled with profanity it doesn’t mean you actually know what you’re talking about. It meanis you’re an abrasive, narcissistic child in need of a serious reality check.

            But thanks for admitting that you’re trolling and not actually interested in learning anything.

          • Fred

            LOL you thought I was actually talking to you? Talking about Narcissism…

          • baal

            Call me a neckbeard Joe. I miss steve willy and wonder what I’d find if I compared his posts and yours.

          • islandbrewer

            I am an atheist, reading comments on an atheist blog that I read every day. It’s like you’re walking up to my door, ringing my doorbell, and screaming “Stalker!” when I open the door.

            You are a worthless fucking piece of shit. [That's still not an ad hominem. Have you figured that one out, yet, shit-for-brains?]

          • Joseph O Polanco

            Argumentum ad passiones. Just because your flouncing is riddled with profanity it doesn’t mean you actually know what you’re talking about. It meanis you’re an abrasive, narcissistic child in need of a serious reality check.

            But thanks for admitting that you’re trolling and not actually interested in learning anything.

          • islandbrewer

            No, fucktard. There was no argumnetum ad passiones nor was there any flouncing. Do you know what flouncing is, shit-for-brains? Because you can cut and paste the same reply over and over again doesn’t actually mean that it is ever correct. You’re easily distracted by profanity aren’t you. So much so you can never actually understand anyone’s arguments, can you?

            Non sequitur – would you ever let (oh, you don’t have custody of your son, thankfully, I assume, and can’t make disastrous medical decision for him, phew!), but if you had any influence over your son’s future education, would you stop him from going to college? From entering a graduate program in the type of physics that you so orgasmically love to quote, but don’t understand? The kind of study that JWs eschew?

          • Fred

            No custody of his son, tell me more.

          • islandbrewer

            Not much to tell. According to his Facebook profile, he is single, we can see he has a son. He does not appear to be involved in his son’s day to day life, thus the deduction that he does not have custody. He has failed to deny this assertion when it’s made.

            Hopefully, this means he can’t deny his son a blood transfusion if he needed one.

            Divorce is frowned upon (but not forbidden) among Jehovah’s Witnesses. Not surprisingly, the divorce rate, and the rate of cheating on spouses while married, isn’t any lower among JWs (although they’d want you to think that it is), than any other group.

            http://www.jwfacts.com/watchtower/divorce.php

          • Fred

            I know its hilarious, he babbles Latin phrases without knowing what they mean.

          • baal

            Your ignorance of basic science isn’t for me to prove. Should I also prove algebra while I’m at it? I’d suggest checking out fly to human genomic homologies – note in particular how we have essentially 4 genes to 1 of theirs (ie 2 duplication of genomes events) except for the brain specific genes.

          • Joseph O Polanco

            So, basically, you have no proof … why am I not surprised …

          • baal

            I call Abuse-of-Ellipsis!

            It’s your burden to not be pig ignorant.

            Iam liquescit et decrescit grando, nix et cetera

          • Compuholic

            Wouldn’t it be nice if creationist would hold themselves to their own standard?

            We could as well reform the question: “Please show us a single instance of a God creating anything (and prove it)”. We have plenty of examples of things being created by natural means but exactly zero examples of a god creating things. Hell we even have zero examples of god.

            DNA is a molecule. So far we have never witnessed anything but natural interactions between molecules. So why should DNA be an exception?

          • Joseph O Polanco

            How about the universe. Does the universe count? http://bit.ly/10j5YgK

          • Fred

            Nope. The universe has always existed.

          • Joseph O Polanco

            The premise that the all matter and energy began to exist 13.70 billion years ago is not a religious declaration nor a theological one. You can find this statement in any contemporary textbook on astrophysics or cosmology. And it is supported by the vast majority of cosmologists today.

            The Borde-Vilenkin-Guth Theorem, for instance, proves that any universe, which has, on average, a rate of expansion greater than one ** must ** have a ** finite beginning **. I’m not making this up. Read the paper in full or watch Vilenkin himself invalidate and impugn beginningless universe models like Eternal Inflation, Cyclic Evolution and Static Seed/Emergent Universe on youtube.

            As such, Vilenkin had this to say regarding the beginning of the universe, “It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. *** There is no escape, they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning ***. (Many Worlds in One [New York: Hill and Wang, 2006], p.176) (Emphasis mine.)

            As Theoretical Physicist and Cosmologist Stephen Hawking put it, “the final nail in the coffin of the Steady State theory came with the discovery of the microwave background radiation, in 1965.”

            Emphatically, then, your fervent belief that the universe is infinitely old, beginningless, or eternal has no basis in any respected mainstream scientific theories of the universe. It’s just more atheistic folderol and wishful thinking.

            This creates the necessity for a first uncaused-cause. After all, something cannot come from nothing as I’ve already shared (http://bit.ly/SSsy8x). I’ve also explained that this first uncaused efficient cause must also, by necessity, be transcendent, beginningless, timeless, spaceless, immaterial, unchanging, omnipotent, personal and good. As it turns out, such is the very definition of God.

          • baal

            “As Theoretical Physicist and Cosmologist Stephen Hawking put it,”
            Your dishonesty knows no bounds Joeseph. Hawking is an atheist despite any snippet of text you may find that might imply support for one of your arguments. This means he’s aware of all his own statements and does not draw the conclusion you do.

          • Joseph O Polanco

            He is also an atheist who accepts the evidence that the universe began to exist 13.70 billion years ago.

          • baal

            Your post starting “An atheist who” is a sentence fragment and doesn’t express an intelligible thought. Please try again.

          • Fred

            Your mistake is in thinking that the universe around us (the 13.8 billion year old one) is the one that I was talking about.

            The universe has always existed.

          • Joseph O Polanco

            Wake up. The Steady State theory was debunked a long, long time ago.

            Welcome to the 21st century!

          • Fred

            I’m not talking about the steady state, you still dont understand you poor stupid fuck.

          • Fred

            Oh noes JOP you were banned from another blog. It takes some deeply repugnant shit to get banned from the Friendly Atheist.

          • islandbrewer

            And if he weren’t traveling, JT would likely ban him from this one. JTs pretty tolerant of mendacious screechers like Joe, but linking to your own comments again and again and again and never would probably cross his “Nothing actually contributed in the comments” rule.

          • Gehennah

            FA banned him too?

            Now he can go back to his clique and say “hey look Friendly Atheist banned me for having a conversation and they say they don’t ban people unlike us for no reason.”

            The difference is often we get banned for asking questions or presenting counter arguments for their “facts” unlike people like JOP who get banned for spamming.

          • Andy_Schueler

            He eventually gets banned everywhere he tries to impress people with his mad Ctrl-C+Ctrl-V skillz – FA was the blog that tolerated him the longest so far ;-).

          • http://gamesgirlsgods.blogspot.com/ Feminerd

            Oh for fuck’s sake. All the energy and matter in the universe (and really, they’re effectively the same thing) existed before our current universe began, because that’s what the Big Bang was. The sudden expansion of all that energy/matter from a single point. I highly doubt Fred was suggesting any sort of Steady State universe theory.

            No one with any understanding whatsoever of the physics of the thing suggests that the Big Bang was the beginning of all the matter/energy of the universe. Only poorly informed, badly mis-educated people think that. You can take your strawman argument (you are deliberately misstating the theories of the origin of the universe and then arguing against that misstatement, which is the definition of a strawman argument) and kill it dead with fire now, please.

          • Fred

            Bingo. I would have explained it more, but Poor old JOP isn’t worth it. Thanks for taking the time though.

          • http://gamesgirlsgods.blogspot.com/ Feminerd

            I was bored today. I’m teaching myself HTML5, and my brain was overloading a bit. The online course thingy I’m using assumes you know HTML already, and I really don’t, so there’s a lot of figuring stuff out on my own.

            JOP is a fun timesink when he doesn’t induce pure rage.

          • Joseph O Polanco

            So the universe existed before the universe existed?

          • http://gamesgirlsgods.blogspot.com/ Feminerd

            All the energy and matter in the universe existed before the universe itself existed, yes. It’s entirely possible that the universe exists in cycles- it expands for awhile, then contracts in on itself again. It’s also entirely possible it doesn’t. We don’t know. If it does do that, though, then it would be accurate to say that the universe existed before the universe existed.

          • Joseph O Polanco

            Prove it.

          • http://gamesgirlsgods.blogspot.com/ Feminerd

            I’m not an astrophysicist. I can’t do that math, which is the only way to have absolute proof (everything else is just evidence strongly suggests, including the germ theory of disease). I can only suggest you go find the journal articles and textbooks and read them yourself. But all the evidence we have does point to a single point of origin for the universe, which was all in a single point in space before it began to rapidly expand (people say explode sometimes, but I’ve been informed that that is incorrect terminology). May I suggest Wikipedia for a starting point, moving on to some of their citations for peer-reviewed articles and such?

            I mean, this isn’t even controversial anymore. It’s widely accepted, and people have moved on to trying to figure out the how and why of the Big Bang, not if it happened at all. That’s pretty sure.

          • Joseph O Polanco

            So you have no evidence … just as I thought …

          • http://gamesgirlsgods.blogspot.com/ Feminerd

            Incorrect. I just don’t have the evidence to hand. I don’t have journal access, and I’m not going to spend money on your education. You spend it. Wikipedia, as I said, is an excellent place to start looking it up. Here, I’ve even linked the first page you should read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_bang

            You will note the very first paragraph: “The Big Bang theory is the prevailing cosmological model that describes the early development of the Universe. According to the theory, the Big Bang occurred approximately 13.798 ± 0.037 billion years ago, which is thus considered the age of the universe. At this time, the Universe was in an extremely hot and dense state and began expanding rapidly. After the initial expansion … ” (emphasis mine)

            It is a core aspect of the Big Bang theory that the energy/matter already existed. You should already know that.

            Prove Goddidit, since that’s your alternative hypothesis.

          • Joseph O Polanco

            No, it’s not. “*** All matter and energy of the Universe *** was momentarily concentrated in a small volume, which then exploded, and the Universe that we see today is made up of the remnants of that explosion.” – http://1.usa.gov/17OxEZZ (Emphasis mine.)

            Sutor, ne ultra crepidam!

          • Andy_Schueler

            “No, it’s not.”
            - You say after copypasting stuff that says the exact same thing as Feminerd said :-D

            “Sutor, ne ultra crepidam!”
            - WOW. Seriously… I mean, just like the magical sky daddy you believe in represents the epitome of power + knowledge, you represent the epitome of pretentiousness, ignorance, lazyness and apparently also condescension.
            I take my hat off to you sir, you are officially the most pretentious, lazy, ignorant and patronizing ass this world has ever seen ;-)

          • http://gamesgirlsgods.blogspot.com/ Feminerd

            We don’t know if it was momentarily in a small volume or not, actually. That’s one of the things we’re trying to figure out and may never know. We really don’t know much of anything about things before the universe.

            You will also note the terminology of “exploded” and realize that this was written for laypeople who don’t realize that isn’t the correct term, possibly by laypeople and not the scientists themselves. Thus, you should take it with some grains of salt in the details and not attempt to use it as evidence beyond that the Big Bang is, in fact, widely accepted as the theory for the origin of the universe. Wikipedia, on the other hand, is crowdsourced and has been vetted by many experts in the field. It’s still not a source one can cite in any research paper, but in scientific fields it is extremely accurate and should be considered so.

            Baka yaro ne!

          • Joseph O Polanco

            My NASA quote rebuffs your Wiki-casuistry and you pretend to teach ME about contemporary Cosmology?!?!

          • http://gamesgirlsgods.blogspot.com/ Feminerd

            Yes, actually, because that is not scientific research. It is a NASA-for-laypeople website and it isn’t using proper terminology. While Wikipedia isn’t scientific research either, at least the people who wrote it understand that the universe never exploded!

            As I said, we don’t know what happened before the Big Bang. This website doesn’t change that. Arguing semantics doesn’t change that fact that when you claim the Big Bang theory says everything came from nothing, you are wrong.

          • Joseph O Polanco

            It does, however, refute your benighted claim that all matter and energy, and thus the spacetime universe, has always existed.

          • http://gamesgirlsgods.blogspot.com/ Feminerd

            No, actually, it doesn’t, because I never made that claim. What I said was that the energy/matter of the universe existed before the big bang. I also said we don’t know where it came from or how long it existed. Unlike you, I try to be aware of what we don’t know and what we do know.

            Unlike you, I also know that matter and energy are not actually two different things.

            Oh, and you’re still wrong in your interpretations of the Big Bang theory. Wrong wrong wrong. I want to see you admit it.

          • Andy_Schueler

            I also said we don’t know where it came from or how long it existed.

            I´m not a physicist, but afaict, we already can say that the question “how long did it exist before that”, is not meaningful – because any putative pre-bang universe would be causally disconnected (i.e. leaving no observational consequences in ours) from our post-bang universe and it would thus make no sense to extrapolate time further into the “past” because it wouldn´t actually be a “past” as we understand the word.

          • http://gamesgirlsgods.blogspot.com/ Feminerd

            Yeah, but I wouldn’t have put it nearly as elegantly as you just did. JOP would have twisted whatever I said, and I just didn’t want to deal with it.

            I just wanted to get across the point that the Big Bang did not create all that energy as far as we know. I’m sorry I mangled the science trying to get that out :/

          • Andy_Schueler

            I just wanted to get across the point that the Big Bang did not create all that energy as far as we know. I’m sorry I mangled the science trying to get that out :/

            I think you did a good job with that – as soon as one talks about this stuff with words instead of equations, it´s probably completely impossible to not mangle the science at least a little ;-).

          • Joseph O Polanco

            You mean you don’t remember pontificating, “All the energy and matter in the universe existed before the universe itself existed, yes”?

          • http://gamesgirlsgods.blogspot.com/ Feminerd

            Sigh. What I said was, we don’t know for sure where the energy came from, but the Big Bang didn’t “create” it. That we’re pretty sure of. It existed for some amount of time before the Big Bang- how long that was, we don’t know.

            So yes, my previous statement is correct, and finding a layperson’s website even from NASA is not going to change that. Gods, you’re really bad at being deliberately obtuse. Just admit you fucked up, you’re wrong, and move on with things.

          • J. Polanco

            Noooo, what you said was, “All the energy and matter in the universe existed before the universe itself existed, yes,” when everyone knows our spacetime universe IS the aggregate of ALL matter/energy. http://bit.ly/H2yJrB

            Sutor, ne ultra crepidam!

          • http://gamesgirlsgods.blogspot.com/ Feminerd

            Actually, we don’t know that. We know that the energy in our universe is the aggregate of all the energy in our universe, which is a tautology.

            We don’t know what’s outside our universe. There could be other ones. You’re arguing things you can’t possibly know again.

            You’re also trying to shift the goalposts on me. The energy of our universe existed before the big bang occurred. That is the only claim I have made, and it is a correct claim as far as all current scientific evidence can confirm. I have never made the claim that our universe either does or does not contain all energy that ever existed, so as far as that claim goes, it’s irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

            You were wrong, get over it. Baka yarou ne!

          • J. Polanco

            Which you, so far, have been unable to support with evidence. When I press you for evidence you recoil and shriek in despair about my supposed desperation …

          • http://gamesgirlsgods.blogspot.com/ Feminerd

            Incorrect. I have pointed you towards the places that have evidence, you just refuse to read them. Lead a horse to water and all that …

            Go. To. Wikipedia. Or, if you have academic journal access and a very high level of education in astrophysics/math, any number of truly fascinating articles dealing with this very topic. I do not have all the evidence at hand, because I am not an astrophysicist or a mathematician. Unlike some people, I do know the limits of my education, and “proving” something like the Big Bang is well beyond my mathematical limits.

          • Maxximiliann

            Onus probandi incumbit ei qui dicit, non ei qui negat.

          • http://gamesgirlsgods.blogspot.com/ Feminerd

            Eres un hombre sin imaginacion o el abilidad de pensar racionalmente. Tambien no puedes hablar latin. Pero si quieres hablar en otro lenguaje, puedes usar espanol o japones.

          • Maxximiliann

            I think you meant to say “habilidad” instead of “el abilidad.” In fact, what you should have said was, “Eres un patán sin imaginación ni habilidad de pensar. Peor aun, no puedes escribir en latín. Pero si deseas expresarte en otro idioma, puedes usar español o japonés.” Better, right? :)

          • http://gamesgirlsgods.blogspot.com/ Feminerd

            A bit, yes. My Spanish is quite rusty. However, I trust you get the actual point?

          • Gehennah

            He likes to use big words to make himself sound smarter than he actually is. But of course when asked to break down the meaning of his posts, he won’t do it because he knows he doesn’t actually have anything to back up what he says. Instead he is insisting on talking over people’s heads.

          • http://gamesgirlsgods.blogspot.com/ Feminerd

            I know :/. That doesn’t mean I’m not going to tweak him though. I just ignore the stuff in Latin- if he really wanted to communicate, he would. If he just wants to feel superior, whatever, if the best he can do is spout old sayings from a dead language I feel sorry for him.

          • Gehennah

            Same. I love interviewing people like him at work though. I always have one of my best experts sitting in on interviews with me, but only there to watch, and then myself (and I know a good bit in RF and computers). When people come in like him, trying to talk over everyone’s heads I play dumb and ask them to break it down for me. And most of the people can’t break it down to basic terms, which means that a) they are likely full of it (which my expert will be able to easily detect) or b) incapable of translating from Geek to English (and its usually a rather than b).

            It is sad though, when someone has to try to talk over someone’s head to feel superior, especially in the information age when we can double check what he’s saying a vast majority of the time.

          • http://gamesgirlsgods.blogspot.com/ Feminerd

            Ah, applying the old “if you can’t explain it to a fourth grader, you don’t really understand it” tactic. It’s a surprisingly good one.

          • Gehennah

            It is, but its also extremely useful at work. We have a few director level people, and higher end managers that walk the floors a lot and are curious about what is going on.

            Its annoying in a way, since they do occasionally get in the way, but at the same time they are honestly trying to learn more about what is going on and its helped with communication and understanding from both sides.

            So the ability to translate from Geek to English is almost mandatory (then again our accounts and legal teams also have to do the same thing).

          • islandbrewer

            Back in the day as a graduate student, I would use that as a measure for the undergrads in my classes. They could often recite whatever enzymes were found in a certain cascade, or the order of reactions in a pathway, but they would be stumped if I asked them something simple, like, “What does that enzyme do?” or “What actually is this ‘single’ that gets transferred?” I’d try to get them to go back and figure out the things that weren’t merely crucial test answers, but the basics of the complex molecular biology they were learning.

            I remember getting my ACL torn in grad school, and went to get an MRI. I asked the physician how the MRI worked, and he started to give me a canned response about magnetic resonances when I stopped him and said that I knew about magnetic resonance, I’d used NMR machines before. That still didn’t explain how one could get an image using the resonance signature of electrons that were present in all the tissues in my body.

            He couldn’t answer. It didn’t take me long after that to figure out how images were created by the differing densities of tissues and differing percentages of water, but the fact that he was stymied was telling.

          • Maxximiliann

            Si, mi amor.

          • http://gamesgirlsgods.blogspot.com/ Feminerd

            Ugh. No. wmdkitty already called you out for that shit. You are repulsive, and to call me “mi amor” is just a way for you to degrade me and try to claim control of, and negate, my actual feelings. It’s not cutesy, it’s not funny, and it’s not acceptable. Casual misogyny might get be acceptable in JW land, but here in atheist-land, we don’t like that kinda bullshit.

          • purrtriarchy

            I just had to drop by and say that you’re a piece of shit.

            An ignorant piece of shit to boot.

          • Andy_Schueler

            argumentum ad shittus latinus to makus me soundus more intelligentus thanus I reallyus am. us.

            - Johnny P.

          • baal

            Joe, you’re the one constantly shirking your burden. Not Feminerd.

            Figlio di puttana, sai che tu sei un pezzo di merda?

          • JTEberhard

            Ok, totally done with this guy. Here comes the ban hammer.

          • islandbrewer

            He can’t make the distinction between the differing uses of words. You and I look at what the word “universe” refers to in the context of the writing, and easily recognize the difference. Joseph depends on ignoring these distinctions, or misapprehending them. Notice how he’s resorted to trying to argue about what you’re saying, and not actually arguing about the physics (which he doesn’t understand).

            Plus, he gone back to Latin he doesn’t really understand, again, too.

          • islandbrewer

            Wow, is that what they teach at your Watchtower meetings? No, really – at which physics department did you learn that interpretation of the Big Bang?

          • Joseph O Polanco

            Btw, I think it’s adorable how you reckoned you were conversing with someone completely nescient about contemporary cosmology.

          • Andy_Schueler

            You are completely ignorant about cosmology, as you are about any other scientific field. All you do is copypasting and stringing buzzwords together with zero understanding.

          • RobMcCune

            Because she is conversing with someone completely ignorant about modern cosmology.

          • http://gamesgirlsgods.blogspot.com/ Feminerd

            I only go by what you show me. You have proven yourself completely nescient about contemporary cosmology by your asinine questions. If you know the answers, why ask stupid questions?

            And why try to shift things now, when you’ve been proven so very wrong yet again? Please do keep in mind that we’re not stupid, and we can see how you just drop the points you’ve been shown your errors on, only to pop them up elsewhere with nary a sign of rethinking involved.

            So please. Your alternative hypothesis is Goddidit. Prove it.

          • Joseph O Polanco

            You’re regurgitating the Steady State Theory and I’m ignorant?!?!

          • http://gamesgirlsgods.blogspot.com/ Feminerd

            No. Which you would know if you read anything I actually said.

            Your hypothesis is Goddidit. Prove it.

          • Joseph O Polanco
          • http://gamesgirlsgods.blogspot.com/ Feminerd

            Nope! I’ve replied over there already.

            Prove Goddidit.

          • islandbrewer

            This is what happens to your reading comprehension after reading too many “Awake!” pamphlets.

          • islandbrewer

            We still do.

          • islandbrewer

            Wow. You really don’t understand Vilenkins Inflation Cosmology at all, do you. Quoting from a WLC slide?

          • Joseph O Polanco

            Nope. I was quoting page 176 of his book, “Many Worlds in One.”

          • Gehennah

            What proof do you have that god made the universe? An old book of fairy tales that is demonstrably wrong on many things?

          • Joseph O Polanco
          • Gehennah

            That doesn’t actually prove anything at all, which is the problem.

          • Joseph O Polanco

            Argumentum ad lapidem. Your flouncing does not dispel the arguments presented nor the facts that support them. Try again.

          • islandbrewer

            Mmm, no. The burden of your ridiculous claims is for you to prove, and you consistently fail.

            Try again, abusive troll.

          • Gehennah

            First how am I flouncing? Do you know what the word means?

            Second, the Cosmological argument has been refuted numerous times. And it is a huge stretch to even get from the Cosmological argument to a personal god and then to the Christian god from that.

            So please, in your own words, what part of the Cosmological Argument makes a good argument to support your god.

          • Joseph O Polanco
          • Gehennah

            Sorry, not clicking on any more links.

            Either put up or shut up in your own words.

          • baal

            What arguments and what facts? /boggle

          • Compuholic

            Well I guess all the stupid scientists must be wasting their time them. Hey, since you know so much more than them: Why don’t you publish your proof, get famous as the person who solved the origin of the universe and get a fucking Nobel prize.

            Oh the “proof” has been around for a long time and has failed to convice everybody? I wonder why that is…

          • Joseph O Polanco
          • Compuholic

            ???

          • Joseph O Polanco

            Where did I lose you?

          • Compuholic

            You linked to a post where you quoted 2 stories. Great. And now what?

          • Joseph O Polanco

            And what were those “stories” about?

          • Compuholic

            Not about my suggestion/question. But even if they were: Who cares about stories or the personal views of some people?

          • baal

            Hi Joe!!! /wave
            Also, Bye bye!!!!!

          • Joseph O Polanco

            I don’t follow. Please clarify.

          • baal

            Do you win extra points with Jehovah for each bit . ly link? Is there a celestial revenue share set up for these or something?

          • islandbrewer

            Hey Joseph, would you be willing to read this if we all pitched in and bought you a copy?

            http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2013/10/15/the-redemption-and-apostasy-of-a-devout-jehovahs-witness/

            Or would you refuse because it’s critical of your beliefs, and might magically poison you?

          • Gehennah

            DNA is naturally occurring. Do you have any evidence at all showing that your god or any god actually coded DNA?

          • Joseph O Polanco

            The failure of every single experiment designed to create DNA from the ground up. If no team of scientists has been intelligent enough to accomplish this, how could blind chance? (Nevermind the fact that all life is the denouement of pre-existing life but began a finite time ago.)

            Abiogenesis, like Alchemy, Neptunism, the geocentric universe, Spontaneous Generation, Lamarckism, Emication, the existence of the planet Vulcan, Lysenkoism, Gradualism, Trepanation, Miasma theory of disease, Telegony, the expanding earth, the existence of Phlogiston, martian canals, Luminiferous Aether, the Steady State Theory, Cold Fusion, Hollow Earth Theory, Gradualism and Phrenology, is just another case of the blind leading the blind in the lazy hopscotch up the imaginary slope of Mt. Improbable …

          • baal

            Um, you do know that there are companies that make these things for PCR reactions called “primers”. They are chemically made bits of DNA. While you’re going to learn some thing, look up yeast-artificial chromosomes and this little detail.

            also, wow your ignorance is showing.

          • Gehennah

            Thanks, I was looking for an article on that to reply to Joeseph with.

            Of course now he will change tones and say “hey that proves ID” when it proves that we are able to create life as well.

          • Joseph O Polanco

            Biomimetics (copying the DESIGN of living organisms) is creating something completely new from scratch?

          • Gehennah

            Yes, I’d say yes it is.

          • Joseph O Polanco

            What newfangled dictionary of the English language are you using?

          • Gehennah

            Please explain in your own words why it is not.

          • Joseph O Polanco

            Pleasae explain how the reproduction of an original work is that from which a reproduction is made.

          • Gehennah

            Can you rephrase the question.

            Can you also answer my question.

          • Joseph O Polanco

            I can’t. It’s as much folderol as your assertion.

          • Gehennah

            Mr Copy and paste thesaurus.

            Thanks for admitting that you can’t answer my simple question.

          • Joseph O Polanco

            Just answering your folderol with folderol …

          • Gehennah

            Using a thesaurus doesn’t make you look more intelligent.

            I asked you to rephrase a simple question, you lack the ability to do so. I asked you a simple question, you lack the ability to answer it.

          • Joseph O Polanco
          • Gehennah

            Put up or shut up, not playing the click on link game anymore.

          • baal

            Your use of terms leave something to be desired. You do know that cells work based on the usual rules that chemistry follows? The alcohol molecules a yeast fungi make in fermentation is the exact same molecule that chemical plants can make via inorganic chemistry. It’s not ‘mimetics’. It’s the same thing. The same exact thing.

            After unwinding your asinine definitions, it’s clear you mean to say that you can’t chemically make a bio-molecule since bio-molecules are made via biology. This position of yours is stupid. Chemists can and do make molecules all the time that are the exact same thing as biology makes. Chemists can usually even do it to higher purity standards.

            Really, you’re totally out of your depth here and are playing sophistic word games that are wrong on the science (reality).

          • Andy_Schueler

            Sooo, first you say that scientists being unable to synthesize DNA proves that DNA is “designed”, and then after someone schools you on that, you claim that scientists being able to synthesize DNA also proves that DNA is “designed”? You really are the stupidest son of a bitch I´ve ever seen :-D

            Btw, there is very good evidence that the first darwinian replicators on this planet had no DNA (not to mention that it would be a priori incredibly unlikely that they had it). Furthermore, what matters in this context is not the ability to synthesize DNA (or RNA or XNA), but a synthesis pathway that would work under realistic prebiotic conditions.
            You´re welcome. Moron.

          • islandbrewer

            The failure of every single experiment designed to create DNA from the ground up.

            Well, fuck, Mr. Fuckington! There’s a MerMade 192 about 20 feet from my old office that synthesizes DNA primers every day (weekdays, 9 am – 3 pm – get your order in before noon and it’ll be ready by noon the next business day).

            Care to rephrase your, well, it’s not a sentence, actually, nor a question, whatever it is you’re attempting to say?

          • Andy_Schueler

            Hey, if it isn´t Joseph Copypasta Polanco!

            Abiogenesis, like Alchemy, Neptunism, the geocentric universe, Spontaneous Generation, Lamarckism, Emication, the existence of the planet Vulcan, Lysenkoism, Gradualism, Trepanation, Miasma theory of disease, Telegony, the expanding earth, the existence of Phlogiston, martian canals, Luminiferous Aether, the Steady State Theory, Cold Fusion, Hollow Earth Theory, Gradualism and Phrenology, is just another case of the blind leading the blind in the lazy hopscotch up the imaginary slope of Mt. Improbable …

            I know I know, you will keep copypasting the same shit over and over again and ignoring all refutations because you are not only stupid, but also lazy. But again, that you are even too lazy to fix the random capitalization and the double occurences in this list never ceases to amaze. You are just a gift that keeps on giving :-D

          • Gehennah

            Just like herpes

  • Rene Belloq 12 inch figure

    He doesn’t deserve that Abraham Lincoln beard, strip that man of that beard!

  • Al Falafal

    Oh SNAP! The god damn bible!

  • Putnam

    “MO MUNKEY PUSSSY FO MEE!”

  • Jennifer

    Go figure the comments on Youtube have been disabled. Cowards.

  • Steve Jacoby

    Final nail? Man, you haven’t even found the board or the hammer, much less any nails.

  • Mickelodian

    Ken Ham… he is living proof that regardless of how deluded you think creationists are there is always a greater level of sheer lunacy they can attain.

    This will not be a good century for creationist nonsense… but hey, they make for great entertainment.

  • Trip Affleck

    just fyi, while these charlatans routinely disable comments and ratings for their videos, you can still send them messages via their YouTube channel; let him know what you think…
    http://www.youtube.com/user/creationmuseum/about

  • Paula M Smolik

    “We can’t depend solely on our reason.” You don’t depend on it at all. Oh! The book says it’s telling the truth. That’s proof. Not.

  • Serge Rudashevsky

    I don’t know. He sounds so convincing.

    • john Catao

      :)

  • Albert Ross

    ouch

  • JammitTimmaj

    The original video has ratings disabled and comments disabled. Why am I not surprised?

  • Colin

    This is such a laugh. “It is in a book, most parts of which were written based on stories told by by illiterate people decades or even hundreds of years after the event, so it must be true.”

  • Jamie Strauss

    Kill me now

  • l___c_____

    Not knowing the reasoning capabilities of cretins, sorry meant creationists, I could easily have taken this for an internet troll. Sadly I know it’s not such, just your ordinary rationality troll.

  • Colin Barton

    What bollocks ! Just send us all your money ! Smug bastard !

  • Kerry Norton

    If Xtians check out one of the 1st original bibles, you know, those old Jewish books. And then look at todays KJV bible they’ll see how the bible has evolved. King me, Xtians.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Chris-Ray/1437168024 Chris Ray

    I agree. That’s why my ancestors worshipped a stick. It had the added advantage that when they had finished worshipping the stick they could use it as a walking stick, a pointer during lessons and a means of getting mud out of horses hooves. Checkmate anti-stickests and anti-pagans.

  • Dan Weeks

    Hmm….final nail, eh? That’s not a nail, that’s a fish. Go find a first nail, then maybe you can worry about a final one….

  • Steve Baker

    i would love to believe this guy-but Im afraid I cant lower myself to be so stupid,-so I guess Ill have to be happy to remain a militant Athiest!

  • Stephen Campbell

    Ha ha ha!!

  • Johnrlogan

    LOL well, that settles it. the FSM is real! i knew it!

  • Brian

    When is Ham going to come out? He and Glenn Beck would make a cute couple.

  • Darryl Sweetland

    Ummmm!! Are you guys telling me this is NOT a spoof? Nobody, but nobody could be that utterly vacuous in this day and age, could they?

  • Mike Janowski

    You know, maybe I’d be more convinced if he didn’t speak in that wanky New Zealand accent. Far to twee for me to believe…

  • Mike Janowski

    I guess that would be “too” twee…sorry, grammar police!

  • Tom Cruise

    YES! This means Lord Xenu exists! I told you all the scientoligists aren’t crazy!

    Thank you for restoreing my faith

  • Thomas Parum

    This is SO cool! I’m just now reading Hitchhiker’s Guide for the 7th time and then I see this! I can’t fucking wait! Tomorrow I’m buying a new towel.

  • lightyear25

    I found God yesterday, he spoke to me, I could not see him but he directed me to change my ways. Yes, I could not see him or verify it was him, BUT I KNOW IT WAS HIM! I just know, and thats enough evidence for me… praise Chuck Norris.

  • Michael Brown

    “we can’t depend solely on our reasoning ability to convince skeptics”! HAHAHAHA religious people using reason? Isn’t that blasphemy?

  • Markymarc18

    Oh snap! That bitch just gave science a kick in the nuts!

    #delusional

  • http://NeedGod.com/ deanforGod

    We have all broken God’s law. We have all stolen, lied, looked with lust (adultery of the heart according to God) . Because God is a just and holy God, he must punish sin (like a just and good judge who punishes a murderer by sending him to prison.) Each of our sins against an infinitely good God is an infinite offense. God’s prison is hell where the fire is not quenched and the worm never dies. The Bible says God is rich in mercy and loving and He made a way for us so that we don’t have to go to hell. He sent His Son, Jesus, fully God and fully man to live a perfect and sinless life and to die on the cross as payment for our sins. On the third day he was resurrected and defeated death and sin. God has two requirements of us. That we repent of our sins (turn from our sins, turn from our worldly ways) and turn towards Christ and that we believe in and put our trust in Christ’s perfect life and sacrificial death on the cross. So please, believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved.

    • Stevarious

      Another Christian just got done not five minutes ago explaining to me that hell is not a real place at all, and that any ‘Christian’ who insists that hell is real is actually a deceiver sent by Satan, because no loving god would choose to torture his children.

      Any chance you’ll explain WHY we should believe you and not him? You’re both reading from the same book here, why such vastly different messages?

      • Joseph O Polanco

        Dollars to donughts he’s never actually read the Bible in full …

    • peabody3000

      or not. hahahahaha

    • Joseph O Polanco

      Hellfire is a lie: http://bit.ly/17fVMYm

      • baal

        bit.ly links are the sign of the devil (or fraudsters, take your pick). Before you go on about how great they art; consider using the standard html tag a href=”putlinkhere” TEXT /a wrap the elements with greater and less than signs. Google it!

        • Joseph O Polanco

          Like I don’t do enough work as it is …

          • baal

            hoc est opus ut queratur,
            si quid loquar, audiatur

        • islandbrewer

          Oh, I so want to see the two of them argue over the magic afterlives they got from the same folklore. It’s like a Monty Python skit. “No, he meant we are to cast off one shoe!”

      • http://NeedGod.com/ deanforGod

        You are gambling your eternal future with that statement

        http://www.needGod.com

        • Joseph O Polanco

          Not in the slightest. No loving God would torture anyone for an eternity no matter what they did. Besides, Romans 6:23 makes it clear that the wages of sin is death, not eternal torment: http://bit.ly/17fVMYm

          • http://NeedGod.com/ deanforGod

            Unfortunately, you have created a god in your mind that does not exist. That is idolatry. You can’t emphasize one trait of God over another.

            God is a just judge and is angry with the wicked every day (Psalm 7:11)

            Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both the soul and body in Hell. (Matthew 10:28)

            God doesn’t torture. His punishment and anger is judicial. God is loving. He is also holy and righteous.

            God is holy and righteous and hates sin. He has chosen hell as the place of punishment for our sin.

            Hell is described as where the worm does not die and the fire is not quenched (Mark 9:42-48)

            He is loving because He sent His son Jesus, fully God and fully man to live a perfect and sinless life and die on the cross as payment for our sins and to be resurrected on the third day.

            God call all to repentance. To turn from your sin (a change of mind towards sin that hates sin and past sinful ways). He also calls all to trust in Jesus, His death and resurrection.

          • baal

            Polanco is a troll dean. I doubt he’ll bother to read the bible quotes let alone stay on topic.

          • http://gamesgirlsgods.blogspot.com/ Feminerd

            Nonono let the two theists go at it, please. I just put the popcorn in the microwave!

          • Gehennah

            It’s really fun **steals some popcorn from Feminerd**

            Bah, too much butter.

          • islandbrewer

            I, for one, am entertained, now, by the dean-Joseph match.

          • Cake

            It wont last. Much like the behavior of two carrion eaters; they will measure each other carefully and as long as the other doesn’t make too challenging of eye contact, they will politely ignore each other to feast on the same corpse.

          • http://NeedGod.com/ deanforGod

            Thanks. I don’t mind. I’m willing to share Biblical truth with whoever will correspond.

            So your name, baal. Is it meant to represent the pagan god in the Bible that was worshiped in ancient Canaan and infiltrated the Jewish religious life in Judges 3:7 or is it some other reference?

          • baal

            Ba’al is arabic for master or lord. It’s usage is a lot like “chief”. I’m aware that the overly biblical folks can get stuck on the name. In that case, I like to point out that the Canaanites lost a war and that victors of wars tend to paint their enemies in a false light.

            I started using it a long time ago as an on-line nym because I like how it’s pronouned (not as Bael Jt!) and belial was taken.

          • http://NeedGod.com/ deanforGod

            Thanks. By the way, there are no “overly Biblical” folks. You either have a Biblical world view or you don’t. And yes, there are many impostors running around. Sorry about that.

          • islandbrewer

            Thanks. I don’t mind. I’m willing to share Biblical truth with whoever will correspond.

            The problem, Dean, is that Joseph has demonstrated absolutely no interest in “corresponding.” He just contradicts. His arguments include such gems as “prove it” and insults (without profanity, mind), and bible quotes. Yes, I know you post bible quotes, too, *sigh* but you at least come across as sincere and are attempting to make some sort of argument with your quotes.

            Joseph appears to lack any shred of sincerity or respect. He’s the classic definition of a “troll” – someone who has no interest in engaging, and posts only to make people angry.

          • http://NeedGod.com/ deanforGod

            Thanks. That is perhaps the nicest response I think I have ever received on any of these websites I have posted. I hope I don’t get you in trouble for my saying that.

            With regards to quoting the Bible. I am incurable.

            2 Corinthians 5:20-21: 20 We are therefore Christ’s ambassadors, as though God were making his appeal through us. We implore you on Christ’s behalf: Be reconciled to God. 21 God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.

          • islandbrewer

            I hope I don’t get you in trouble for my saying that.

            I may have to stick my tongue out at a church, or sneer at an old lady to compensate, if the angry atheist police come to my door.

          • http://NeedGod.com/ deanforGod

            Well, the guy waving at the church entrance is me inviting you to service.

            Jesus said I am the way, the truth and the life, and no one comes to the Father, but by me.

          • Cake

            Remembering Deans antics on Friendly Atheist I think they were both cut from the same cloth.

          • islandbrewer

            Hush! Don’t ruin the match!

          • Joseph O Polanco

            That’s not what Matthew 10:28 says. This is what it says, “καὶ μὴ φοβηθῆτε ἀπὸ τῶν ἀποκτεινόντων τὸ σῶμα τὴν δὲ ψυχὴν μὴ δυναμένων ἀποκτεῖναι· φοβεῖσθε δὲ μᾶλλον τὸν δυνάμενον καὶ ψυχὴν καὶ σῶμα ἀπολέσαι ἐν γεέννῃ.”

            And this is what Mark 9:42-48 actually says, ” Καὶ ὃς ἂν σκανδαλίσῃ ἕνα τῶν μικρῶν τούτων τῶν πιστευόντων, καλόν ἐστιν αὐτῷ μᾶλλον εἰ περίκειται μύλος ὀνικὸς περὶ τὸν τράχηλον αὐτοῦ καὶ βέβληται εἰς τὴν θάλασσαν. Καὶ ἐὰν σκανδαλίσῃ σε ἡ χείρ σου, ἀπόκοψον αὐτὴν· καλόν ἐστίν σε κυλλὸν εἰσελθεῖν εἰς τὴν ζωὴν ἢ τὰς δύο χεῖρας ἔχοντα ἀπελθεῖν εἰς τὴν γέενναν εἰς τὸ πῦρ τὸ ἄσβεστον. καὶ ἐὰν ὁ πούς σου σκανδαλίζῃ σε, ἀπόκοψον αὐτὸν· καλόν ἐστίν σε εἰσελθεῖν εἰς τὴν ζωὴν χωλὸν ἢ τοὺς δύο πόδας ἔχοντα βληθῆναι εἰς τὴν γέενναν. καὶ ἐὰν ὁ ὀφθαλμός σου σκανδαλίζῃ σε, ἔκβαλε αὐτὸν· καλόν σε ἐστιν μονόφθαλμον εἰσελθεῖν εἰς τὴν βασιλείαν τοῦ θεοῦ ἢ δύο ὀφθαλμοὺς ἔχοντα βληθῆναι εἰς γέενναν. ὅπου ὁ σκώληξ αὐτῶν οὐ τελευτᾷ καὶ τὸ πῦρ οὐ σβέννυται.”

            You’ve been duped my friend.

          • Guest

            delete

          • baal

            μάρτυρας είναι ένας ηλίθιος

          • Gehennah

            Иосиф там с Рэй Комфорт в интеллектуальной нечестности

          • islandbrewer

            That wasn’t intended by you to be any sort of argument at all. You don’t actually speak greek (if you did, you would have put it on your Facebook page), so why paste passages in a language you have no knowledge of, if not simply to dazzle others an avoid actually making an argument?

          • baal

            I don’t speak Greek either. Google translate is amazing. I otherwise agree that JOP has done more cut & paste without the least effort to apply that block of text or to show what’s the important bits.

          • Gehennah

            Care to actually translate this for us o wise one, or are you just blindly copying and pasting again and using words that you hope that other people won’t pick up on.

          • Joseph O Polanco

            Are you Dean’s sockpuppet?

          • Gehennah

            Actually no, Dean and I seem to have a widely different view when it comes to theism.

            So, care to actually translate the text or shall you evade?

          • islandbrewer

            Evade! Evade! (You can’t actually make arguments, if you haven’t noticed.)

          • http://NeedGod.com/ deanforGod

            Hello. I totally understand your position. Many people or organizations bring their own personal opinions to the Bible and then try to justify them by either ignoring certain verses in the Bible or obfuscation. You have attempted both by your post. However, please, let me help clarify and let’s start with Matthew 10:28.

            γεέννῃ is translated to “hell.” Now, you may argue that it’s Gehenna and thus try to explain it away as “the common grave or annihilation”

            I chose this verse on purpose because the verse doesn’t make sense they way you would likely try to explain it. You would have me believe that:

            Do not fear the those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both the soul and body in “the common grave or be annihilated”

            So, my question is, if I’m already dead, why would I fear the common grave or why would I fear to cease to exist?

            Using your rationale, I can murder, steal, rape, or just plain be Hitler and my punishment is to cease to exist?

            That’s not what the Bible teaches. The Bible teaches that our sins are an offense to God and He punishes us by sending us to Hell. That is why we should fear not the one who can kill only the body, but rather the one who can send the soul to Hell for all eternity. But eternal life is granted to those who repent and put their trust in Christ.

          • Joseph O Polanco

            So when Christ instructs, “καὶ ἐὰν ὁ ὀφθαλμός σου σκανδαλίζῃ σε, ἔκβαλε αὐτόν· καλόν σέ ἐστιν μονόφθαλμον εἰσελθεῖν εἰς τὴν βασιλείαν τοῦ Θεοῦ, ἢ δύο ὀφθαλμοὺς ἔχοντα βληθῆναι εἰς τὴν γέενναν,” you’re supposed to literally rip your eye out to avoid being pitched into Gehenna? (Mark 9:47)

            If, however, you affirm, correctly, that Christ was speaking metaphorically and was not in fact commanding self-mutilation, then Gehenna must also be symbolic in meaning. Concordanly, the Jewish scholar David Kimḥi explicates that γέεννα (or הנם גי) was “a place in the land adjoining Jerusalem, and it is a loathsome place, and they throw there unclean things and carcasses. Also there was a continual fire there to burn the unclean things and the bones of the carcasses. Hence, the judgment of the wicked ones is called parabolically Gehinnom.”

            Vincent’s Word Studies confirms, “It is the Greek representative of the Hebrew Ge-Hinnom, or Valley of Hinnom, a deep, narrow glen to the south of Jerusalem, where, after the introduction of the worship of the fire-gods by Ahaz, the idolatrous Jews sacrificed their children to Molech. Josiah formally desecrated it, “that no man might make his son or his daughter pass through the fire to Molech” (2 Kings 23:10). After this it became the common refuse-place of the city, into which the bodies of criminals, carcasses of animals, and all sorts of filth were cast. From its depth and narrowness, and its fire and ascending smoke, it became the *** symbol *** of the place of the future punishment of the wicked.” (Emphasis mine.)

            So you see, “The valley of Hinnom became the dumping place and incinerator for the filth of Jerusalem. Bodies of dead animals were thrown in to be consumed in the fires to which sulphur, or brimstone, was added to assist the burning. Also bodies of executed criminals, who were considered undeserving of a decent burial in a memorial tomb, were thrown in. If such dead bodies landed in the fire they were consumed, but if their carcasses landed upon a ledge of the deep ravine their putrefying flesh became infested with worms, or maggots, which did not die until they had consumed the fleshy parts, leaving only the skeletons.

            No living animals or human creatures were pitched into Gehenna to be burned alive or tormented. Hence, the place could never symbolize an invisible region where human souls are tormented eternally in literal fire or attacked forever by undying worms. Because the dead criminals cast there were denied a decent burial in a memorial tomb, the symbol of the hope of a resurrection, Gehenna was used by Jesus and his disciples to symbolize everlasting destruction, annihilation from God’s universe, or “second death,” an eternal punishment.

            Therefore, to have one’s dead body cast into Gehenna was considered the worst kind of punishment. From the literal Gehenna and its significance, the symbol of the ‘lake burning with fire and sulphur’ was drawn.—Re 19:20; 20:10, 14, 15; 21:8.”

            What’s more, if Hell truly was created to burn alive the devil, his angels and wicked mankind for all eternity, why was Jesus placed in hell after he died?

            Acts 2:31

            King James Bible
            He seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell , neither his flesh did see corruption.

            American King James Version
            He seeing this before spoke of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell , neither his flesh did see corruption.

            Bible in Basic English
            He, having knowledge of the future, was talking of the coming again of Christ from the dead, that he was not kept in hell and his body did not see destruction.

            Douay-Rheims Bible
            Foreseeing this, he spoke of the resurrection of Christ. For neither was he left in hell , neither did his flesh see corruption.

            Webster’s Bible Translation
            He seeing this before, spoke of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell , neither did his flesh see corruption.

            Concerning Jesus, Acts 2:27 informs us –

            King James Bible
            Because thou wilt not leave my soul in hell , neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption.

            American King James Version
            Because you will not leave my soul in hell , neither will you suffer your Holy One to see corruption.

            Bible in Basic English
            For you will not let my soul be in hell and you will not give up your Holy One to destruction.

            Douay-Rheims Bible
            Because thou wilt not leave my soul in hell , nor suffer thy Holy One to see corruption.

            Webster’s Bible Translation
            Because thou wilt not leave my soul in hell , neither wilt thou suffer thy Holy One to see corruption:

          • http://NeedGod.com/ deanforGod

            I suggest that you answer the exact issue I brought up in my last post which was Matthew 10:28. We will address the other verse as well, but I focused on this one, so let’s not skip over it until it’s addressed.

          • Gehennah

            It’s what Joseph does though. He won’t actually carry on a real conversation. He copies and pastes random replies, and tries to evade any question you ask.

          • Joseph O Polanco

            I did. One’s exegesis of Christ’s teachings must be done in the context of his teachings. Otherwise you’re just quote mining.

          • http://NeedGod.com/ deanforGod

            Yes, of course. Context is king and the whole Bible must be consistently interpreted. So please, specifically comment on Matthew 10:28

          • Joseph O Polanco

            Some additional background, then. Jehovah God warned Adam and Eve, “As for the tree of the knowledge of good and bad you must not eat from it, for in the day you eat from it you will positively die.” (Genesis 2:17)

            In turn Satan countered, “YOU positively will not die.” (Genesis 3:4)

            Who do you believe? Jehovah God or Satan? Are Adam and Eve dead or alive?

          • Andy_Schueler

            It´s on! Quote mine battle – *grabs popcorn*

          • http://NeedGod.com/ deanforGod

            Here is the problem you have. The Bible is completely consistent. If you quote 50 verses that you believe support your position but there is one that is in conflict, you have to reconcile the conflict.

            Matthew 10:28 is not consistent with your view of hell. So you can continue to quote other verses in the Bible, but you actually have to address this verse if you want to make your point.

          • Joseph O Polanco

            As I’ve already shown from the original Greek, Jesus is NOT speaking of hell but of Gehenna. By not conflating the two there is no conflict.

          • http://NeedGod.com/ deanforGod

            But there is, because if you look at the meaning of what is being said, there is a conflict. I’ll re-post my original comments on this from above:

            γεέννῃ is translated to “hell.” Now, you may argue that it’s Gehenna and thus try to explain it away as “the common grave or annihilation”

            I chose this verse on purpose because the verse doesn’t make sense they way you would likely try to explain it. You would have me believe that:

            Do not fear the those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both the soul and body in “the common grave or be annihilated”

            So, my question is, if I’m already dead, why would I fear the common grave or why would I fear to cease to exist?

            Using your rationale, I can murder, steal, rape, or just plain be Hitler and my punishment is to cease to exist?

            That’s not what the Bible teaches. The Bible teaches that our sins are an offense to God and He punishes us by sending us to Hell. That is why we should fear not the one who can kill only the body, but rather the one who can send the soul to Hell for all eternity. But eternal life is granted to those who repent and put their trust in Christ.

          • Joseph O Polanco

            I’ve already proven this is a mistranslation. Gehenna is not Sheol or Hades, i.e., hell.

          • http://NeedGod.com/ deanforGod

            Let me take a different approach. What do you think Matthew 10:28 teaches in the Bible?

          • J. Polanco

            “Notice that there is no mention here of torment in the fires of Gehenna; rather, he says to ‘fear him that can destroy in Gehenna.’ By referring to the “soul” separately, Jesus here emphasizes that God can destroy all of a person’s life prospects; thus there is no hope of resurrection for him. So, the references to the ‘fiery Gehenna’ have the same meaning as ‘the lake of fire’ of Revelation 21:8, namely, destruction, “second death.””

            “Regarding this text, The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology (edited by C. Brown, 1978, Vol. 3, p. 304) states: “Matt. 10:28 teaches not the potential immortality of the soul but the irreversibility of divine judgment on the unrepentant.” Also, Bauer’s Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament (revised by F. W. Gingrich and F. Danker, 1979, p. 95) gives the meaning “eternal death” with reference to the Greek phrase in Matthew 10:28 translated “destroy both soul and body in Gehenna.” Thus, being consigned to Gehenna refers to utter destruction from which no resurrection is possible.”

            “Matthew 10:28 states that God “can destroy both soul [psy·khen′] and body in Gehenna.” This shows that psy·khe′ does not refer to something immortal or indestructible. There is, in fact, not one case in the entire Scriptures, Hebrew and Greek, in which the words ne′phesh or psy·khe′ are modified by terms such as immortal, indestructible, imperishable, deathless, or the like. On the other hand, there are scores of texts in the Hebrew and Greek Scriptures that speak of the ne′phesh or psy·khe′ (soul) as mortal and subject to death (Ge 19:19, 20; Nu 23:10; Jos 2:13, 14; Jg 5:18; 16:16, 30; 1Ki 20:31, 32; Ps 22:29; Eze 18:4, 20; Mt 2:20; 26:38; Mr 3:4; Heb 10:39; Jas 5:20); as dying, being “cut off” or destroyed (Ge 17:14; Ex 12:15; Le 7:20; 23:29; Jos 10:28-39; Ps 78:50; Eze 13:19; 22:27; Ac 3:23; Re 8:9; 16:3), whether by sword (Jos 10:37; Eze 33:6) or by suffocation (Job 7:15), or being in danger of death due to drowning (Jon 2:5); and also as going down into the pit or into Sheol (Job 33:22; Ps 89:48) or being delivered therefrom (Ps 16:10; 30:3; 49:15; Pr 23:14).”

          • http://NeedGod.com/ deanforGod

            Thank you for actually answering my question. So you would have me believe that I should fear after I am dead, ceasing to exist. Any atheist on this site could tell you that they believe that you cease to exist after you die. You are just packaging it differently and hiding behind your obfuscated Bible verse interpretations. But it’s the same thing. You are denying the truth because you don’t want it to be true. You don’t want there to be eternal torment for our sins. The Bible is very clear about eternal punishment.

            It is interesting that a much higher percentage of people believe in the existence of heaven than believe in the existence of hell. According to the Bible, though, hell is just as real as heaven. The Bible clearly and explicitly teaches that hell is a real place to which the wicked/unbelieving are sent after death. We have all sinned against God (Romans 3:23). The just punishment for that sin is death (Romans 6:23). Since all of our sin is ultimately against God (Psalm 51:4), and since God is an infinite and eternal Being, the punishment for sin, death, must also be infinite and eternal. Hell is this infinite and eternal death which we have earned because of our sin.

            The punishment of the wicked dead in hell is described throughout Scripture as “eternal fire” (Matthew 25:41), “unquenchable fire” (Matthew 3:12), “shame and everlasting contempt” (Daniel 12:2), a place where “the fire is not quenched” (Mark 9:44-49), a place of “torment” and “fire” (Luke 16:23-24), “everlasting destruction” (2 Thessalonians 1:9), a place where “the smoke of torment rises forever and ever” (Revelation 14:10-11), and a “lake of burning sulfur” where the wicked are “tormented day and night forever and ever” (Revelation 20:10).

            The punishment of the wicked in hell is as never ending as the bliss of the righteous in heaven. Jesus Himself indicates that punishment in hell is just as everlasting as life in heaven (Matthew 25:46). The wicked are forever subject to the fury and the wrath of God. Those in hell will acknowledge the perfect justice of God (Psalm 76:10). Those who are in hell will know that their punishment is just and that they alone are to blame (Deuteronomy 32:3-5). Yes, hell is real. Yes, hell is a place of torment and punishment that lasts forever and ever, with no end. Praise God that, through Jesus, we can escape this eternal fate (John 3:16, 18, 36).

          • J. Polanco

            I would have you believe what the Bible teaches:

            Revelation 20:14
            “καὶ ὁ θάνατος καὶ ὁ ᾅδης ἐβλήθησαν εἰς τὴν λίμνην τοῦ πυρός.”

            GOD’S WORD® Translation (©1995)
            “Death and hell were thrown into the fiery lake.”

            King James Bible
            “And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire.”

            American King James Version
            “And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. ”

            American Standard Version
            “And death and Hades were cast into the lake of fire.”

            Bible in Basic English
            “And death and Hell were put into the sea of fire.”

            Douay-Rheims Bible
            “And hell and death were cast into the pool of fire.”

            Webster’s Bible Translation
            “And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire.”

            Your exegesis gainsays this truth as well as these: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/wwjtd/2013/08/the-final-nail-in-evolutions-coffin/#comment-1086666447
            http://www.patheos.com/blogs/wwjtd/2013/08/the-final-nail-in-evolutions-coffin/#comment-1087070302. After all, Adam and Eve are dead, not alive, and Christ did nothing to merit “torment and punishment that lasts forever and ever, with no end.”

            To deem Christ deserving of such is to be antichrist.

            You are not dividing the Word correctly. (James 3:1)

          • http://NeedGod.com/ deanforGod

            I am going to hold on responding to this post until you answer all of my posts about asking you what is your gospel. What does your church teach is the gospel, and in detail. Once you answer this single question, I promise I will address all your other points.

          • J. Polanco

            Come now. You withhold response because you have not a credible one to give.

            Like medieval castle gates ready to rive from the siege of a colossal battering ram, our Creator’s Bible truths continue to batter your hoary mendacities … and you can do nothing but watch as these rend right before your very eyes …

          • http://NeedGod.com/ deanforGod

            Yet you choose not to reveal what is of “first importance” that of the gospel. I have closed all other discussions not because I fear to engage you on those fronts, but rather, because I find that the opposite is true.

            You hide behind all your fancy words and cut and paste theology so that you don’t have to actually address the gospel truth that your church teaches, which is different than what your own translation of the Bible says.

            Your church makes man made rules to follow that add to the gospel. It’s clear as day you are unwilling to share your gospel because it differs from the Bible.

            Yet if you follow all of my posts, whether this latest round or a month or two ago, I have freely shared and been willing to discuss that which is of “first importance” so that those who are perishing will know the truth. Here it is again in my own words without cut and pasting anything. What’s yours?

            We have all broken God’s law. We have all stolen, lied, looked with lust (adultery of the heart according to God) . Because God is a just and holy God, he must punish sin (like a just and good judge who punishes a murderer by sending him to prison.) Each of our sins against an infinitely good God is an infinite offense. God’s prison is hell where the fire is not quenched and the worm never dies. The Bible says God is rich in mercy and loving and He made a way for us so that we don’t have to go to hell. He sent His Son, Jesus, fully God and fully man to live a perfect and sinless life and to die on the cross as payment for our sins. On the third day he was resurrected and defeated death and sin. God has two requirements of us. That we repent of our sins (turn from our sins, turn from our worldly ways) and turn towards Christ and that we believe in and put our trust in Christ’s perfect life and sacrificial death on the cross. So please, believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved.

          • J. Polanco

            i. Prove your malicious accusations.

            ii. Tell me, then, what’s more important than doing God’s will as Christ himself instructed? (Matthew 7:21)

            Do you really believe that those who do God’s will are denied from sharing in all the blessings our loving Creator has reserved for the righteous? (Luke 23:43; Psalm 37:11,29; Isaiah 9:7; Micah 4:3; Revelation 21:3-5)

          • http://NeedGod.com/ deanforGod

            I’m saying that you are evading the question by giving a general “Do God’s Will.”

            What does your church teach is the gospel, in detail?

          • J. Polanco

            “Obey, please, the voice of Jehovah in what I am speaking to you, and it will go well with you, and your soul will continue to live.” -Jeremiah 38:20

            “As for the one listening to me [Jehovah God], he will reside in security and be undisturbed from dread of calamity.”—Proverbs 1:33 (Bracket mine.)

            “Peter and the [other] apostles said: “We must obey God as ruler rather than men.”

            “The God of our forefathers raised up Jesus, whom YOU slew, hanging him upon a stake. God exalted this one as Chief Agent and Savior to his right hand, to give repentance to Israel and forgiveness of sins. And we are witnesses of these matters, and so is the holy spirit, which God has given to those obeying him as ruler.”” -Acts 5:29-32

            “As regards Jehovah, his eyes are roving about through all the earth to show his strength in behalf of those whose heart is complete toward him.” -2 Chronicles 16:9

            “This is what the love of God means, that we observe his commandments.” -1 John 5:3

            “Jesus said []: “It is written, ‘It is Jehovah your God you must worship, and it is to him alone you must render sacred service.’”” -Luke 4:3 (Bracket mine.)

          • http://NeedGod.com/ deanforGod

            Yes. Thank you. That is a better effort to specifically answer the question. I appreciate that.

            So, with the above verses in light (in addition to the whole Bible of course), it is my understanding that you believe that there is Paradise and annihilation.

            What does your church teach that must be done in order end up in Paradise and avoid annihilation?

            My church teaches that we are all sinners (Romans 3:23), that God is a just judge (psalm 7:11) and punishes us for our sins by sending us to eternal punishment in hell (Matthew 25:46, Luke 16:19-31, Revelation 21:8) . But because of His great love for us (John 3:16) He sent Jesus Christ, to live a perfect and sinless life, and to willingly die on the cross as a substitution for our sins (2 Corinthians 5:21) and was raised from the dead on the third day.

            Eternal life is for those who repent of their sins and put their trust in Jesus Christ. This repentance and trust causes you to be a “new creation” (2 Corinthians 5:17) and results in bearing fruit or good works. That fruit or response to salvation is not what saves you but is evidence that you are saved.

          • J. Polanco

            I don’t follow. How do the passages I’ve just shared not address these questions? (If you’re looking for a different answer perhaps you should try asking different questions, no?)

          • http://NeedGod.com/ deanforGod

            Yes, but “obey God” and “keep His commandments” are general. I’m asking what your church teaches more specifically related to this.

            But I will ask one additional question. Do you believe that keeping the 10 commandments allow you to obtain or earn your or contribute towards one’s salvation in paradise?

          • J. Polanco

            “Christ by purchase released us from the curse of the Law.” – Galatians 3:13
            “But now we have been discharged from the Law.” – Romans 7:6
            “By means of his flesh [Jesus] abolished the enmity, the Law of commandments consisting in decrees.” – Ephesians 2:15 (Bracket mine.)
            “[God] blotted out the handwritten document against us, which consisted of decrees.” – Colossians 2:13,14 (Bracket mine.)

            Now, do you know what purpose the Mosaic Law served? Are you aware of the new arrangement that followed it? http://bit.ly/17i5ZFO

          • http://NeedGod.com/ deanforGod

            You will have to tell me without the link.

          • Maxximiliann

            Would the overlords of this forum not frown upon the offering of volumes of truth .. alas …

          • http://NeedGod.com/ deanforGod

            I think you must be making this up. I’ve over and over again preached the same message in different ways and have not been restricted in any way on this website.

            So you are saying that the Gospel requires “volumes” to communicate? Why is it so simply stated in the Bible. Why does your explanation require volumes.

            How was the thief on the cross saved? He couldn’t read, he couldn’t do anything except hang there and die. Why did Jesus grant him eternal life?

          • Maxximiliann

            Prove it. Prove Christ gave him eternal life.

          • http://NeedGod.com/ deanforGod

            Yep tactical error on my part. I gave you a rabbit trail to follow. I will discuss that Christ gave the thief on the cross eternal life, when you share with me your churches teaching on the gospel.

          • J. Polanco

            It’s interesting to note that The Jerusalem Bible, in a footnote, acknowledges that Luke 16:19-31 is a “parable in story form without reference to any historical personage.” If taken literally, it would mean that those enjoying divine favor could all fit at the bosom of one man, Abraham; that the water on one’s fingertip would not be evaporated by the fire of Hades; that a mere drop of water would bring relief to one suffering there. Does that sound reasonable to you?

            Moreover, if literal, this account would exist in stark opposition to other parts of the Bible. If the Bible were thus contradictory, would a lover of truth use it as a basis for his faith?

            But the Bible does not contradict itself (Or do you believe otherwise?)

            What does the parable mean? The “rich man” represented the Pharisees. (See verse 14.) The beggar Lazarus represented the common Jewish people who were despised by the Pharisees but who repented and became followers of Jesus. (See Luke 18:11; John 7:49; Matthew 21:31, 32.) Their deaths were also symbolic, representing a change in circumstances. Thus, the formerly despised ones came into a position of divine favor, and the formerly seemingly favored ones were rejected by God, while being tormented by the judgment messages delivered by the ones whom they had despised.—Acts 5:33; 7:54.

            Accordingly, Christ never taught anywhere that Hell – Sheol (in Hebrew) or Hades (in Koine) – was a physical location where immaterial souls would experience eternal fiery torment because that’s just not what he believed. His thoughts on what happened to man at death were in complete harmony with the teachings found in such passages as Genesis 3:19 and Ecclesiastes 9:5 & 10. (cf. John 11:1-14.)

          • http://NeedGod.com/ deanforGod

            A parable is intended to teach a Biblical truth, not necessarily replicate an actual event. The Biblical truth taught in the parable of the rich man and Lazarus is don’t end up in hell. Jesus made up a conversation between two people to teach a point. And that point is that we have the Bible to reveal the truth (“Moses and prophets of verse 31) and that it is necessary to repent (verse 30) and that there is no evangelism in hell (verse 27-31).

          • J. Polanco

            What does the parable mean? The “rich man” represented the Pharisees. (See verse 14.) The beggar Lazarus represented the common Jewish people who were despised by the Pharisees but who repented and became followers of Jesus. (See Luke 18:11; John 7:49; Matthew 21:31, 32.) Their deaths were also symbolic, representing a change in circumstances. Thus, the formerly despised ones came into a position of divine favor, and the formerly seemingly favored ones were rejected by God, while being tormented by the judgment messages delivered by the ones whom they had despised.—Acts 5:33; 7:54.

            Accordingly, Christ never taught anywhere that Hell – Sheol (in Hebrew) or Hades (in Koine) – was a physical location where immaterial souls would experience eternal fiery torment because that’s just not what he believed. His thoughts on what happened to man at death were in complete harmony with the teachings found in such passages as Genesis 3:19 and Ecclesiastes 9:5 & 10. (cf. John 11:1-14.)

          • http://NeedGod.com/ deanforGod

            Yes, you have repeated what you wrote before, and I read it the first time. I am content to agree to disagree as I have made my point and you have made yours.

            So what does your church teach is the gospel?

          • Maxximiliann
          • http://NeedGod.com/ deanforGod

            As soon as you simply state what your church teaches as the gospel?

            Let me ask another way. How was the thief on the cross saved? He couldn’t read anything, he couldn’t do anything, he was clearly a thief. Yet he was saved.

          • Maxximiliann
          • http://NeedGod.com/ deanforGod

            Yep. Tactical error on my part. I gave you a rabbit trail to follow. I will discuss the thief on the cross when you share with me what your church teaches on the gospel.

          • Maxximiliann

            So, once again. when pressed for evidence you go dumb …

          • http://NeedGod.com/ deanforGod

            and once again when i ask a question, you obfuscate and re-direct away from the question.

            How many times have I asked what your gospel is, in detail?

          • J. Polanco

            Once again, you’re being duped. Matthew 25:46 correctly reads, “καὶ ἀπελεύσονται οὗτοι εἰς κόλασιν αἰώνιον, οἱ δὲ δίκαιοι εἰς ζωὴν αἰώνιον.”

            Check your sources.

          • http://NeedGod.com/ deanforGod

            I’d really like to discuss what your gospel is for it is the power of God for salvation.

            Romans 1:16 – For I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God that brings salvation to everyone who believes: first to the Jew, then to the Gentile.

          • Maxximiliann

            Can you be any more egocentric? There are affairs of much greater import than your salvation or the salvation of man …

          • http://NeedGod.com/ deanforGod

            and could you show less concern for those who are perishing?

            When you repent of your sins and put your trust in Christ, it brings glory to God and He makes you a new creation. Part of that new creation is having a heart for the lost.

            Listen to the apostle Paul’s heart for the Jews who were lost:

            Romans 9:1-4a – I speak the truth in Christ—I am not lying, my conscience confirms it through the Holy Spirit— 2 I have great sorrow and unceasing anguish in my heart. 3 For I could wish that I myself were cursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my people, those of my own race, 4 the people of Israel.

            Yet you continue to withhold that which can give life and bring glory to God, the gospel of Jesus Christ.

          • Maxximiliann

            Nothing could be further from the truth. My responsibility is to announce God’s will and to aid sincere ones in their walk with him:

            ““Now as regards you, O son of man, a watchman is what I have made you {} and at my mouth you must hear [the] word and give them warning from me. When I say to someone wicked, ‘O wicked one, you will positively die!’ but you actually do not speak out to warn the wicked one from his way, he himself as a wicked one will die in his own error, but his blood I shall ask back at your own hand. But as regards you, in case you actually warn someone wicked from his way [for him] to turn back from it but he actually does not turn back from his way, he himself will die in his own error, whereas you yourself will certainly deliver your own soul.” -Ezekiel 33:7-9 (Braces mine.)

            Where do you read here that I am enjoined to coerce or otherwise obligate the apathetic and/or narcissistic to do God’s will?

          • http://NeedGod.com/ deanforGod

            By your failure to answer what does your church teach or what do you believe is the gospel in detail. The gospel is THE power of God. You are willing to go circles and circles around doctrine, but not offer the simple gift of life through the Gospel.

            Romans 1:16 – For I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God that brings salvation to everyone who believes: first to the Jew, then to the Gentile.

          • Maxximiliann

            I don’t follow. How does this answer my query?

          • http://NeedGod.com/ deanforGod

            I’m saying that the gospel is to be preached to all nations and I can’t drag it out of you after countless requests

            Luke 24:46-47 – He told them, “This is what is written: The Messiah will suffer and rise from the dead on the third day, 47 and repentance for the forgiveness of sins will be preached in his name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem

            You cling so tight to the message that you refuse to answer the question of what does your church teach in detail about the gospel. I think I’ve explained what my church teaches regarding the gospel countless times and I can’t get it out of you.

            So what I am saying is your unwillingness to engage even from the beginning shows a lack of concern for those who are perishing.

          • Maxximiliann

            Please explain how any of this is germane to my query. I don’t see it …

          • http://NeedGod.com/ deanforGod

            I’m ignoring whatever your queries are until you answer me the question of what your church teaches regarding the gospel, in specifics and detail. If I went back and counted, I’ve probably asked 30 times.

            Here’s my explanation of the gospel.

            We have all broken God’s law. We have all stolen, lied, looked with lust (adultery of the heart according to God) . Because God is a just and holy God, he must punish sin (like a just and good judge who punishes a murderer by sending him to prison.) Each of our sins against an infinitely good God is an infinite offense. God’s prison is hell where the fire is not quenched and the worm never dies. The Bible says God is rich in mercy and loving and He made a way for us so that we don’t have to go to hell. He sent His Son, Jesus, fully God and fully man to live a perfect and sinless life and to die on the cross as payment for our sins. On the third day he was resurrected and defeated death and sin. God has two requirements of us. That we repent of our sins (turn from our sins, turn from our worldly ways) and turn towards Christ and that we believe in and put our trust in Christ’s perfect life and sacrificial death on the cross. So please, believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved.

          • Maxximiliann

            I will, then, afford you the same courtesy until you’ve addressed mine (especially since I’ve already refuted your antichrist mendacities).

          • http://NeedGod.com/ deanforGod

            Well. I think this is it then. This will be my last response.

            Couple closing thoughts. When Jehovah’s Witnesses come to my door, I speak with them as long as possible for two reasons. First, because, unfortunately, you are lost souls and you need to hear the saving gospel. Second, because if you guys are at my door, then you are not at other peoples doors spreading a false gospel.

            Finally, and I take no pleasure in this statement, but if you take your doctrine to the grave, know this; When you are bowing before Christ, and He says, I never knew you, know that you have been given the truth and you are without excuse.

            Please, please, repent of your sins and put your trust in the true Jesus Christ.

          • Maxximiliann

            Prove it’s a false gospel. Otherwise you’re just equivocating and your teachings are, in fact, antichrist.

      • http://NeedGod.com/ deanforGod

        starting a separate post to our other discussion. I’ll throw you a softball. What is your gospel? i.e., what must I do to enter paradise?

        • Joseph O Polanco

          Simple. Just do God’s will. (Matthew 7:21) http://bit.ly/15XCebD

          • http://NeedGod.com/ deanforGod

            Ok. so when you go to kingdom hall, and do Bible studies and read literature from your organization, it all just says Do God’s will or do you get more detailed.

            Please provide a detailed explanation of your gospel.

          • Joseph O Polanco
          • http://NeedGod.com/ deanforGod

            I’ve decided I’m not going to click on your links anymore, including the one above. I am concerned that somehow you are registering “hits” on your link and that you somehow are
            “getting credit” with your leadership every time someone clicks on your link. If this is true, I am curious, who are you trying to please, man or God?

            So I would like to continue to correspond with you, but would like you to respond in your words. What is your gospel? please be detailed and complete in your response.

          • Joseph O Polanco

            That is your prerogative and I respect it. Unfortunately, walls of text are frowned upon so either you read the information I’ve provided offsite or abandon this topic.

          • Andy_Schueler

            Joseph Copypasta Polanco lost the quote mining battle – who would have guessed??

          • islandbrewer

            See, Dean comes across as sincere and desperately wanting to save souls. Delusional, but he really buys into the mission of “saving souls.”

            Joseph, on the other hand, couldn’t give a flying fuck about your soul. JWs believe they are commanded to “witness” and have to even fill out reports on how much they witness, but like bad lazy cops with a ticket quota, they could care less about the effect they have. Joseph thinks he fulfilling his commands from Jehovah by trolling and being an asshole (asshole in the name of Jehovah!). He winds up just displaying his insecurity. He, as most JWs, didn’t go to college, so he tries to impress us with lots of SAT words and Latin that he doesn’t understand, as well as quoting physics that he “misapprehends.”

            He has no interest in communicating or engaging or talking. He’s being an “obedient slave” for Jehovah, whom he believes commanded him to be a fucking abusing asshole.

          • Andy_Schueler

            Yup, Joseph just seems to try to gather screenshots for his “field mission report” – but it doesn´t seem to bother him at all that his beliefs imply that even if his superiors at the JWs don´t realize that he is just lazily spamming with Ctrl-C+Ctrl-V, Jehovah should know… Almost as if he doesn´t believe all this Jehovah BS either, isn´t it? ;-)

          • http://NeedGod.com/ deanforGod

            I’m amazed. If someone asked me what the gospel was, I would answer instantly and fully, for I would rather all come to repentance and believe in Jesus, so that none would perish and go to hell. I would gladly repeat it over and over again and receive many negative hatred posts so that all might have the chance to read the truth of the gospel of Jesus.

            I know you believe in annihilation, but from reading your posts, it appears as if you don’t care whether people are annihilated or not.

          • Joseph O Polanco

            You misapprehend. I’m not here to tickle anyone’s ears. The truth is the truth, no matter how jarring, inconvenient or curt.

            When a person is brought into an ER, for example, they’re “manhandled,” poked, prodded and even have their clothes torn off – all because they’re in a desperate race against time to save that person’s life.

            If you were truly as concerned for your fellowman as you claim you’d seek out the truth regardless of the effort or inconvenience and you’d proclaim it far and wide.

            Because we too are in a desperate race against time to help the good escape with their lives from the calamity that’s fast approaching …

          • http://NeedGod.com/ deanforGod

            Yes, and with us both knowing that there are those who read these posts but don’t comment, I’m surprised you withhold what your “truth” is that would allow someone to avoid annihilation and would allow them to have paradise. But I will not. The gospel is:

            1 Corinthians 15:1-4: Now, brothers and sisters, I want to remind you of the gospel I preached to you, which you received and on which you have taken your stand. 2 By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain.

            3 For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures

          • J. Polanco

            I withhold nothing. I’m simply operating within the parameters set by those who control this forum.

          • islandbrewer

            I’m simply operating within the parameters set by those who control this forum.

            I’m pretty fucking certain that JT doesn’t “require” you to post blind links or not actually make arguments. An inability to write clearly, summarize, or support your claims using words instead of insults and links to others’ work that you don’t understand is your failing.

          • http://NeedGod.com/ deanforGod

            then what is your gospel?

          • J. Polanco
          • http://NeedGod.com/ deanforGod

            So, we’ve come full circle. When you are in kingdom hall and Bible study, do you all just sit around saying “do God’s will” or do you actual discuss the detail.

            It’s a simple question. I love to ask it of all my Jehovah Witness friends who I speak with “what is the gospel” because you can’t answer the question straight. Because you have added things to the Gospel. Just like the Pharisees who made up their own religious rules you have to spend a certain amount of hours doing witnessing and a whole host of other man made rules.

            Let’s look at the apostle Paul’s words in Corinthians and Galatians:

            1 Corinthians 15:1-4 – Now, brothers and sisters, I want to remind you of the gospel I preached to you, which you received and on which you have taken your stand. 2 By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain.
            3 For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance[a]: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures

            Galatians 1:6-9 – I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you to live in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel— 7 which is really no gospel at all. Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ. 8 But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let them be under God’s curse! 9 As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let them be under God’s curse!

            Please repent of your sins and put your trust in the true Savior, Jesus Christ, fully God and fully man.

          • J. Polanco

            Just because you don’t like the answer the Scriptures gives you it doesn’t mean I haven’t given you a direct, succinct answer.

            Everything you’ve quoted is summed up in Christ’s command to do God’s will. (Matthew 7:21)

            (NOTE: Christ said to do God’s will, not his. If Christ was God why make that distinction?)

          • http://NeedGod.com/ deanforGod

            What I am saying is that you are evading the question by being unwilling to be specific/detailed.

            Because God is one essence in three persons. And Jesus the Son (who is God) was speaking of God the Father (who is also God.)

            John 8:58 – I tell you the truth, Jesus answered, before Abraham was born, I am!.

            Exodus 3:14 – God said to Moses, I AM WHO I AM, and he said, Thus, you shall say to the sons of Israel, I AM has sent me to you.

            John 8:59 – At this, they (Jews) picked up stones to stone Him…

            The punishment in the Old Testament for blasphemy (claiming to be God) is stoning. The Jews know that Jesus was claiming to be God, that is why in John 8:59 they went to stone Him, because that was blasphemy to them.

            You have to believe in the right Jesus to be saved.

          • J. Polanco

            Please explicate which version of the Trinity Doctrine you’re defending and why it’s veridical while all the others are falsehoods:
            1. Modalism

            2. Latin Trinitarianism
            2.1 Divine Life Stream Theories
            2.2 Relative Identity Theories

            3. Social Trinitarianism
            3.1 Functional Monotheist Social Trinitarianism
            3.2 Trinity Monotheist Social Trinitarianism
            3.3 Perichoretic Monotheist Social Trinitarianism
            3.4 Group Mind Monotheist Social Trinitarianism

            4. Mysterianism
            4.1 Negative Mysterianism
            4.2 Positive Mysterianism

          • http://NeedGod.com/ deanforGod

            So no response to my request to be detailed about what your gospel is?

            Are you once again withholding your “truth” from everyone so that we will all be annihilated?

            Unfortunately, this happens every time I engage a Jehovah’s Witness. They would rather run circles around doctrines than address the single most important question for unbelievers, which is, What happens when someone dies, how is the punishment of sin avoided, and what must be done to be saved?

            We’ve had quite a few posts, and you’v refused to be specific. Why withhold your “truth”. I freely give the gospel to all who ask (and those who don’t ask as well) to that they might have eternal life.

            Is it because you preach a gospel contrary to what the Bible teaches?

            Galatians 1:8-9 – But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed. 9 As we have said before, so now I say again: If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed.

            I went to the Jehovah’s Witness site and pulled 1 Corinthians 15: 1-4 – so that you might see in your own version of the Bible what the gospel (good news is)

            Now I remind you, brothers, of the good news that I declared to you, which you also accepted, and for which you have taken your stand. 2 Through it you are also being saved if you hold firmly to the good news I declared to you, unless you became believers for nothing.3 For among the first things I handed on to you was what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures; 4 and that he was buried, yes, that he was raised up on the third day according to the Scriptures;

            Here’s Galatians 1:8-9 in the Jehovah’s Witness translation about the gospel (good news)

            However, even if we or an angel out of heaven were to declare to you as good news something beyond the good news we declared to you, let him be accursed. 9 As we have said before, I now say again, Whoever is declaring to you as good news something beyond what you accepted, let him be accursed.

            The apostle Paul is the author of both Corinthians and Galatians.

          • J. Polanco
          • http://NeedGod.com/ deanforGod

            what is God’s will. Be specific.

          • J. Polanco

            This is God’s will: http://bit.ly/1i4E7FT

          • http://NeedGod.com/ deanforGod

            Are you unable to speak for yourself? What is the gospel without a link? be specific

            1 Corinthians 15:1-4 – Now I would remind you, brothers, of the gospel I preached to you, which you received, in which you stand, 2 and by which you are being saved, if you hold fast to the word I preached to you—unless you believed in vain. 3 For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures,

          • J. Polanco

            Unlike your churches, Christ’s sedulous disciples speak with one voice in perfect harmony with his. You have my/our answer. Let’s move on.

          • http://NeedGod.com/ deanforGod

            1 Corinthians 15:3-4 says:

            For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures,

            The gospel is of “first importance” Why don’t we finish that discussion. Why are you hiding the teachings of your church?

          • J. Polanco

            Yes, I’m hiding these teachings by directing you to them over and over and over again …

            Let’s move on: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/wwjtd/2013/08/the-final-nail-in-evolutions-coffin/#comment-1089006915

          • http://NeedGod.com/ deanforGod

            No, I’ve told you I’m not clicking on your links. Explain your gospel teaching in detail. What are you afraid of?

          • J. Polanco

            You lost me. How does this answer my query?

          • http://NeedGod.com/ deanforGod

            What I’m trying to redirect you to my original question, which still remains unanswered. What is your gospel? What must be done to be saved and be specific and detailed.

            What I’m saying is don’t change the topic until this question is answered. Then I will answer your next question.

          • J. Polanco

            You changed the topic from the mendacity of Hellfire to the mendacity of the Trinity Doctrine.

          • http://NeedGod.com/ deanforGod

            Yes, having the right Jesus is part of the gospel. But we will discuss that after you explain what your church teaches is the gospel. Be specific.

          • J. Polanco

            So, in your opinion, which is the “right” Christ and why? Is it:

            1. Modalism

            2. Latin Trinitarianism
            2.1 Divine Life Stream Theories
            2.2 Relative Identity Theories

            3. Social Trinitarianism
            3.1 Functional Monotheist Social Trinitarianism
            3.2 Trinity Monotheist Social Trinitarianism
            3.3 Perichoretic Monotheist Social Trinitarianism
            3.4 Group Mind Monotheist Social Trinitarianism

            4. Mysterianism
            4.1 Negative Mysterianism
            4.2 Positive Mysterianism

            Or is it the Christ who, upon his death, was placed in hell? (Acts 2:27,31)

          • http://NeedGod.com/ deanforGod

            What about your gospel has you so afraid to share it?

          • J. Polanco

            Again, you lost me. How does this answer my challenge?

          • http://NeedGod.com/ deanforGod

            What I am saying is that I am refusing to go down any other rabbit trails until such time that you specifically and in detail tell me what your gospel is. Once you establish what your gospel is, then we can discuss the details and positions of that gospel.

            You are refusing to answer the question because your gospel differs from that of even your own translation of the Bible in 1 Corinthians 15:1-4. And because of that you are under God’s curse (Galatians 1:8)

            If the above statement is not true, then correct me. What is your gospel?

          • http://NeedGod.com/ deanforGod

            I’m trying to redirect you to my original question, which still remains unanswered. What is your gospel? What must be done to be saved and be specific and detailed.

            What I’m saying is don’t change the topic until this question is answered. Then I will answer your next question.

          • http://NeedGod.com/ deanforGod

            Hit post too soon.

            Then what is your gospel?

            And by the way, if it’s different than what I posted above,

            Galatians 1:8 – But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let them be under God’s curse!

          • http://NeedGod.com/ deanforGod

            Just noticed you put a different link instead of your normal one. I still need help understanding your gospel. What is your gospel. Please be detailed.

  • closetatheist

    Ok, nature is just that. NATURAL. god is supposedly SUPERNATURAL. How can something completely natural point to the existence of something that abides by none of the NATURAL laws of the universe?

  • closetatheist

    He literally says, “We can’t depend on our reasoning ability…we present the evidence! the bible!”

    seriously? this fucker says “no no no! don’t use reason! BUT HERE! Use this reason! BUT DON’T REASON ABOUT IT. mmmmk? But its a totally legit reason!”?

    • Gehennah

      Sounds legit to me. I mean since obviously the Bible is written by god, and is perfect, then it is 100% correct. It doesn’t matter that there is no evidence of the Exodus, of Noah’s flood, and that genetics doesn’t support Adam and Eve at all, or Genesis. it doesn’t matter that nobody in the world other than the author of the book of the Bible mentioned the mass zombie resurrection that happened with Christ.

      We can’t trust our reasoning at all. I mean, what has reasoning ever done for humanity/ It’s not like its cured diseases, or launched a man into space or anything like that.

      • Maxximiliann

        Argumentum ex silentio. Fischer’s “Historians’ Fallacies” categorically asserts, “Evidence must always be affirmative. Negative evidence is a contradiction in terms–it is no evidence at all. The nonexistence of an object is established not by nonexistent evidence but by affirmative evidence of the fact that it did not, or could not exist.”

  • stinkyboy

    i need some new teeth. god knocked out my old ones when i was 10. if anyone knows of any special prayers, hexes or spells i can cast to get god to grow me some new teeth, please let me know…

  • Jack LArmour

    The saddest thing is, they’re teaching this creationist bullshit to children.

  • Pingback: mortgage broker atlanta

  • Pingback: snk.to/DOgj


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X