I think implying Sorrentino thinks at all, is a bi…hell…of a stretch. IMHO
So unbelief is unwholesome while a virginity-obsessed blood-and-death cult is wholesome?
3 Likes
Umm, who exactly gets to decide who is or is not learned? You?
I think you are overlooking or have dismissed a salient fact: Most of our members were previously believers.Mostly Christian, with a few Muslims.
Many of us are in fact ‘learned’, in terms of the Bible , some,theology and a reasonable knowledge and understanding of the history of the sect which came to be called Christianity
One of the more risible features of the eye watering numbers of Christian sects is their claim of exclusive , absolute truth. These sects,starting with the Catholics, claim anyone who does not belong to their particular sect is in error and 'not a true Christian". You are making the same arrogant and patronising claim with your 'not learned ’ statement.
I think you know that, because I’m pretty sure you are just another tedious troll.
Ah, playground insult. I see we’ve found your level.
YOU were the one who postured in your previous post, as being in command of logic, so it’s perfectly proper to determine if you actually know what you’re talking about, or whether you’re simply blowing smoke out of your ringpiece. Your failure to understand this points to the palsying effects fo mythology fanboyism.
No, what I’m doing, in case you failed to understand this, is ask YOU to demonstrate that your posturing is backed by substance. Your failure either to provide that substance, or understand the challenge presented, speaks volumes here.
Care to re-cast this word salad into recognisable English?
It’s precisely because I suspect strongly, as a result of over a decade dealing with your ilk, that you’re all hot air and bluster, that I present challenges aimed at establishing this. Which, courtesy of your ersatz for a substantive reply thereto, they have successfully established.
Oh look. the mythology fanboy postures as being in a position to lecture me on discourse. How cute.
Once again, you keep demonstrating that you wouldn’t recognise genuine logic if it backed an M1 Abrams main battle tank into your ribcage.
Plus, your pathetic attempt at tone policing is merely another duplicitous tactic deployed by your ilk, in an attempt to distract from your complete absence of substance.
When evidence is provided for this purported “soul” entity, I and others here will sit up and take notice. Until then, I and others here will treat this as nothing more than typical mythology fanboy passive-aggressive sneering, coupled with hubristic pretension.
Lie. We’re atheists because mythology fanboys like you have failed to support your fantasies with genuine evidence for millennia.
Ah, yet more hubristic attempts to tell me what I think, without bothering with the inconvenience of actually asking me what I think. How often have I seen this from your ilk over the past decade or so?
Science has flushed IDiot assertions down the toilet, such as Behe’s fatuous attempt to redefine “irreducible complexity” to fit mythology fanboyism.
Plus, in case you failed to learn this, the origin of life is NOT part of evolutionary biology. Evolutionary biology concentrates on explaining organismal diversity once replicating organisms exist. The origin of life is the remit of an entirely different discipline, namely organic chemsitry. Which you would have learned if you hadn’t slept through your science classes, and wasted your time with goat herder mythology.
A large body of observational data provided by your ilk says otherwise. Oh wait, since when did you or any of your ilk have something better to offer than “my mythology says so, therefore it’s true”, or fatuous ex recto apologetic fabrications?
Bullshit. All that IDiocy consists of, at bottom, is “I can’t imagine how a testable natural process could produce X, therefore no testable natural process can produce X, therefore my cartoon magic man from my goat herder mythology did it”. That’s all IDiocy IS at bottom. As was established at the Dover Trial.
Oh, by the way, do explain why several million scientific papers, documenting the evidence for testable natural processes in abundance, never once included within their pages the need for your cartoon magic man? Which has been superfluous to requirements and irrelevant more and more with the advancement of scientific knowledge?
By the way, if you think some piece of apologetics from the Duplicity Institute is worth wasting my time on, I have some timeshare apartments in Syria to rent out to you at $10,000 per month.
Now, how about dropping the duplicitous cant and wank-break bullshit, and provide something resembling substance?
Creationists don’t have “arguments”, they have made up shit assertions masquerading thereas.
Pull the other one, it’s got bells on.
“Treat my cartoon magic man as real and he will talk to you” … HA HA HA HA HA HA.
Tell that to every altar boy that’s been raped by a Catholic priest.
This is so pathetic a bare faced lie on your part, that many here are wringing out their underwear after pissing themselves laughing at your bullshit.
I’m on public record here and elsewhere, as welcoming evidence for any real god type entity that actually exists, because the moment said evidence arises, it’ll flush ALL of our fatuous pre-scientific mythologies down the toilet at a stroke. Indeed, one of the posts I provided on the old version of these forums exploring the relevant concepts, can be given the title “How Braneworld Physics Led Me To Conceive A Better God Than Yours”.
You really are a dilettante here.
As opposed to you being too cowardly to answer mine? Your double standard is noted here.
3 Likes
There is no evidence to support any creation myth, thus science has nothing to examine, much like science hasn’t disproved unicorns or mermaids then.
Science has validated Darwinian evolution, what are you talking about? It’s an accepted scientific fact, it is a scientific law of biology that all living things have evolved, the theory of evolution is an accepted scientific theory that contains overwhelming evidence for species evolution.
You can deny it on the internet if it makes you happy, but the entire global scientific community disagrees. All medical research is predicated on the fact of species evolution and shared ancestry, do you never take prescribed medication from a doctor?
Both claims are wrong, all scientific facts must be falsifiable, including scientific laws. Theories don’t follow a linear progression, they’re accepted scientific theories precisely because the objective evidence demands it.
Your ignorance of the most basic scientific facts is pretty sad. Unless you’re trolling of course.
Not even remotely true.
3 Likes
- Ptolemy’s law of refraction was replaced by Snell’s law.
- Catriona Reynolds overturned Darcy’s_law in 2017.
Just because an idea becomes a law, doesn’t mean that it can’t be changed through scientific research in the future.
2 Likes
Wot? Like Newtonian physics meets Einstein?
1 Like
boomer47Atheist
You need to read posts more carefully…
Apologies if I was unclear.I was agreeing with you.
If you’ve still not taken notice of your immaterial part you’ve had all your life, even presented in the questions and rather await a scientific paper, you may never till you leave earth. Denial’s that much a bitch.
Pass the buck was always your fav sport. If you live long enough, might end up the G.O.A.T and then ‘pass’ on to face reality in afterlife.
Smh. Had you learnt to always adhere strictly to logic than occasional bandwagonism , you’d never have fallen prey to human prejudice in Dover, which btw, has been upset by recent findings covered in Behe’s Edge of Evolution and Spencer’s latest works as well as since ever. Why I said you’ve got to develop a mind of your own and stop droning for MSM. Anything handled by humans gets tinged with politics, even science. Only unadulterated logic and science, not scientist’s biases, will survive time in this domain. Uphold logic, even if left all alone. Too, understand better the fraudulent trial by Judge Jones’ Dover Trial Myths and learn why Behe’s work is one of the 100 most important of the 20th century Behe Interview and why there is a growing scientific movement, Revolution
You’ve also shown quite clearly that asides the ersatz straw man narrative of biased scientists and MSM, you don’t understand ID tenets, which btw, you don’t get from arguing irrational ‘creationists’ but from ID institute.
Like I advised then, before arguing against a concept, go to source. Understand Real ID
Point of correction, biased scientists flushed ID down their toilet minds. Logic itself, is always ID’s baby which I show at the bottom as well as here. ID in Science . Be bold and look truth in the face, don’t shy away from these articles like last time.
LMAO. Try enlightening your crew who try to discard ID, theorising gene origins from RNA world due to unguided chemical evo in the ‘primordial soup’, LMAO, and consequent GPE, as the setting of bio evo. Without such anti-ID evo rhetoric, there shouldn’t be much of a debate and what you’ve been doing here would be pointless since it does not discard ID.
Always remember - source! - Heb 11:1
No wonder you never found faith. Smh. You were twiddling with imaginary friends, ignoring realities inside you, waiting for a scientific paper on them. Had you guys not chickened out on the ten questions, you’d have been dealing with those realities and also seen that science can NEVER be the full body of knowledge in our existence. It is only the inner realities that can guide you to the realisation of their creator.
One other thing, Cali, to take to bed tonight. I usually tell y’all who reject ID for not being demonstrable in the lab, Logic is never on your side.
Consider. If the SM and logic, developed by humans, is systematic, principled and purposeful, hence considered intelligent and reliable methods, doesn’t that tell of intelligence in humanity that developed them?
Of course, but did we test the claim in a lab?
Likewise shouldn’t we determine intelligence in nature from the observation of such systematic, principled existence and relationships in creation with an obvious purpose of sustenance? Do we actually have to take that to a lab?
Equally hypocritical that we’d invest so much intelligence to create a robot after human image and turn around and say there’s no ID behind human design. LMAO.
Denial’s a bitch and will at some point, deny even her staunchest loyalists. Pray tell, denial can’t suck any less even with myriad of fellows riding along in that train.
Cool… (Gotta Put in 20 characters before it will post.)
Your response to a science topic is “you gotta have faith”?
3 Likes
What objective evidence can you demonstrate for any deity.
2 Likes
Like all creationists he’s been brainwashed, and doesn’t have even the most rudimentary grasp of science, its methodology, or even understand the meaning of basic scientific terms like scientific theories and laws.
It’s sad and laughable in equal measure.
1 Like
Awww 
we’re back to your “claim”. Remember???
POST 93… POST 63 & 42 … POST 16
YOU copying god??? Keep a person waiting to back your claims??? THEN you have the gall to quote from the buybull??? YOU can’t even establish it has any authority!
You spent time finding stuff in the net to copy and paste and rework so you could take on Cali? Laughable!!!
YOUR god is imperfect, forgetful and doesn’t follow through with “said promises” - from your own book 
No wonder you just want people to have “faith” which is btw another word for GULLIBLE.
1 Like
15 scientific answers to creationist lies,
Again I can only encourage @Sorrentino to try and reverse the damage that creationist indoctrination has clearly done, by educating himself.
I got a dollar and a nice ripe yellow banana that says it aint gonna happen.
What we have seen is references to creationist web sites and authors, failed logic, and “in case of emergency, reference the bible”.
