Are Trolling Fuckwits Worth The Trouble?

[Smellyoldgit]

Andrew66 wrote

There is no thoughtful refutation here Smelly

I realise now that trying to entice you to do some reading and think for yourself was a complete waste of time.

Dawkins recognizes the "miracle" of fine tuning. That is why he advocates multiverse (read God Delusion).

Dawkins does NOT advocate multiverse! He wrote a single passing thought that it may be an "interesting possibility" (in the same way that Star Shitting Galactic Penguins are an interesting possibility). When subsequently questioned, he correctly points out that we have no evidence for anything beyond our own universe. He's got so sick of speculating idiots questioning him, he now simply points out that he's not a physicist and suggests questions be diverted to an appropriate cosmologist. Your appeal is to the wrong Authority.

The thing is, just because there are imperfections, that does not refute the fact that it is still incredible (1 in a zillion or so - that's what I'm calling a miracle) that the physical constants of the universe have been just so to enable human life evolved from stardust.

I was right, the simple concept that life evolved within the conditions the universe presented is lost on you.

The only sound refutation of fine tuning is multiverse. Ironically there is no proof a multiverse exists. Atheists always state "stay with what one knows" - well we only know of one universe.

This confirms that you didn't read the rebuttal I posted recently - or any of the multitude of others you could search out for yourself.

[hertz vanrental]

Smellyoldgit wrote

I realise now that trying to entice you to do some reading and think for yourself was a complete waste of time.

Dawkins does NOT advocate multiverse! He wrote a single passing thought that it may be an "interesting possibility". When subsequently questioned, he correctly points out that we have no evidence for anything beyond our own universe. He's got so sick of speculating idiots questioning him, he now simply points out that he's not a physicist and suggests questions be diverted to an appropriate cosmologist. Your appeal is to the wrong Authority.

I was right, the whole concept that life evolved within the conditions the universe presented is lost on you.

This confirms that you didn't read the rebuttal I posted recently - or any of the multitude of others you could search out for yourself.

I'm ignoring the thick cunt android IQ 66.

It's just best.

It's just too depressing having to confront such a dense twat. In this way, I can retain what little faith I have in human nature.

Is it possible to set the forum to 'stun' whenever the tosser posts?

[Smellyoldgit]

hertz vanrental wrote

I'm ignoring the thick cunt android IQ 66.

It's just best.

It's just too depressing having to confront such a dense twat. In this way, I can retain what little faith I have in human nature.

Is it possible to set the forum to 'stun' whenever the tosser posts?

You can put him on "ignore" and his writings will be hidden - until some cunt like me quotes him, then you get to see it!

[hertz vanrental]

Smellyoldgit wrote

I realise now that trying to entice you to do some reading and think for yourself was a complete waste of time.

Dawkins does NOT advocate multiverse! He wrote a single passing thought that it may be an "interesting possibility" (in the same way that Star Shitting Galactic Penguins are an interesting possibility). When subsequently questioned, he correctly points out that we have no evidence for anything beyond our own universe. He's got so sick of speculating idiots questioning him, he now simply points out that he's not a physicist and suggests questions be diverted to an appropriate cosmologist. Your appeal is to the wrong Authority.

I was right, the simple concept that life evolved within the conditions the universe presented is lost on you.

This confirms that you didn't read the rebuttal I posted recently - or any of the multitude of others you could search out for yourself.

I don't understand why these christards are fixated with the finely tuned constants manure anyways.

FACT: 96% of the Universe is space which is hostile to Man both in terms of radiation and temperature.

71% of the only planet which Man is known to be able to exist on is covered in water - which Man cannot breath in.

Some fuckin' fine tuning.

[hertz vanrental]

Smellyoldgit wrote

You can put him on "ignore" and his writings will be hidden - until some cunt like me quotes him, then you get to see it!

errr, THANKS ???

[hertz vanrental]

JerryJohn wrote

So your original statistics were wrong then, at current atheism rate 10%. Now it's JUMPED UP to 25% magically eh Mama's boy?

JJ

Bitter, twisted old hag

You complain about me telling you about how I love my parents and my pelvic floor exercises. How about I tell you about the problems I have with feminine hygiene products? Maybe we can swop stories?

[hertz vanrental]

JerryJohn wrote

It's not over until the fat lady sings. He can repent on his deathbed and God will forgive him a LIFETIME of sins. That shows the enduring mercy and love of God. I'm sure you are familiar with the thief on the cross next to Jesus in the Bible.

His final last thoughts may very well be a position towards supporting organizeed religion and accepting our Lord, Jesus Christ, as his savior.

Stephen Fry has something which you bastard christards will never have - intellectual honesty.

You christard twats don't know what it is, let alone have it.

How's that cognitive dissonance coming along, old wizened hag?

[Andrew66]

Smellyoldgit wrote

I realise now that trying to entice you to do some reading and think for yourself was a complete waste of time.

Dawkins does NOT advocate multiverse! He wrote a single passing thought that it may be an "interesting possibility" (in the same way that Star Shitting Galactic Penguins are an interesting possibility). When subsequently questioned, he correctly points out that we have no evidence for anything beyond our own universe. He's got so sick of speculating idiots questioning him, he now simply points out that he's not a physicist and suggests questions be diverted to an appropriate cosmologist. Your appeal is to the wrong Authority.

I was right, the simple concept that life evolved within the conditions the universe presented is lost on you.

This confirms that you didn't read the rebuttal I posted recently - or any of the multitude of others you could search out for yourself.

Smelly

You are slightly in error on numerous points, which is a good thing because I can point by point go through it with you. You are one of the few here where it might be worth the effort because you are one of the more fair and reasonable Atheists on this site.

I'll have to read what you presented and delve in.

For now (short of time) - I'll comment on Dawkins view about Multiverse. I remember reading God Delusion, and I remember you are correct that he concedes that there is no evidence for multiverse, so it is just as much a faith based proposition as religion is. However, when he talks about abiogenesis and evolution, he concedes that it seems to him that a multiverse is the best reasonable answer which explains the otherwise extra-ordinarily unlikely (odds against) key events which are required (abiogenesis in particular, but also key points of evolution).

For example I believe he states one would need a billion earths to expect a random assembly of molecules to provide a life form which can divide and mutate - evolve etc).You would have to read the key chapters of God Delusion with this in mind, to see my point.

I can show you Smelly, that the refutation arguments against fine tuning as an incomprehensively rare and unlikely happening are vacuous (accept multiverse of course). The refutations (and I've seem them all, again - excluding multiverse) only suggest that the universe does not appear fine tuned because of a lot of wasted space and use of energy etc (eg. why didn't a creator do an even better job?) but this importantly does not negate the infinitesimally unlikely odds of the physical constants enabling intelligent life.

[Andrew66]

hertz vanrental wrote

I don't understand why these christards are fixated with the finely tuned constants manure anyways.

FACT: 96% of the Universe is space which is hostile to Man both in terms of radiation and temperature.

71% of the only planet which Man is known to be able to exist on is covered in water - which Man cannot breath in.

Some fuckin' fine tuning.

Smelly, these examples are exactly what I'm talking about. They do not refute the fine tuning argument, that so many of the physical constants are necessarily "just so" to enable intelligent life.

Hertz 's argument is only that he expects a greater level of fine tuning.

E.g

Odds of present fine tuning (with Hertz's alleged imperfections) - lets say one in a zillion.

Odds of what Hertz's feels is expected, by his standards, for ideal fine tuning (one in a zillion zillion).

His points don't refute the miracle, he just argues for a greater miracle.!!!!

[Smellyoldgit]

Andrew66 wrote

You are slightly in error on numerous points,.....

I take that as a great compliment from someone who is almost completely in error on most points.

I'll have to read what you presented and delve in.

I won't hold my breath.

For now (short of time) - I'll comment on Dawkins view about Multiverse. I remember reading God Delusion, and I remember you are correct that he concedes that there is no evidence for multiverse, so it is just as much a faith based proposition as religion is.

Keep it simple - a multiverse is conjecture - nothing else.

However, when he talks about abiogenesis and evolution, he concedes that it seems to him that a multiverse is the best reasonable answer which explains the otherwise extra-ordinarily unlikely (odds against) key events which are required (abiogenesis in particular, but also key points of evolution).

He said it was an interesting possibility.

For example I believe he states one would need a billion earths to expect a random assembly of molecules to provide a life form which can divide and mutate - evolve etc).You would have to read the key chapters of God Delusion with this in mind, to see my point.

You have no point! Natural processes can account for current life well within the 4.5 billion years since our earth formed.

I can show you Smelly, that the refutation of fine tuning as an incomprehensively rare and unlikely happening is vacuous. The refutations (and I've seem them all, excluding multiverse) only suggest that the universe does not appear fine tuned because of a lot of wasted space and use of energy etc (eg. why didn't a creator do an even better job?) but this importantly does not negate the infinitesimally unlikely odds of the physical constants enabling intelligent life.

You still seem to be having trouble with the very simple concept, that life originated and evolved within the physicality of our universe. Had the constants been different, life may have evolved differently - or not at all

[Andrew66]

Smellyoldgit wrote

He said it was an interesting possibility.
You have no point! Natural processes can account for current life well within the 4.5 billion years since our earth formed.

Yes, sure Dawkins said multiverse was an interesting possibility. But he also writes paragraph upon paragraph beyond that, stating that by his take (from a Biiology perspective, where he is an expert) that the natural processes for current life WOULD NOT be expected - in his view - to lead to intelligent life - except if there was a multiverse.

Dawkins I recall says there were 3 extra-ordinarily difficult biological developmental junctures where the odds of a chemistry set (a puddle etc.) randomly producing the outcome were just to impossibly rare - unless there were billions of opportunities (billions of earth's) - given the time allotted.

You have to read his book to get this.

One rare juncture, abiogenesis to point of DNA molecule.
Another, development of eurkaryotic cell
Can't remember the other.

Dawkins doesn't like to say he is favour of multiverse, because the point in conjecture and Dawkin's strives to follow science to support his beliefs. But he is also faced with his need to explain how life formed, which seems - he eludes - needs a multiverse (reluctantly attested to).

Unless there are billions upon billions of earth like planets in our single universe of course (I don't think this is the case, in modern cosmology?). Or if our one universe has recycled itself billions and billions of times etc.

The level of complexity of DNA in self replicating animal , and then further progression to eurkayotic cell is just to much to have occurred by chance, on a one off (single planet earth).

[Smellyoldgit]

There's a fuck-ton of this stuff for you to go play with.
Your god-goggles are boring too much shit out of me ....

http://www.bbc.co.uk/nature/history_of_the_earth

http://www2.nau.edu/lrm22/lessons/ti.../24_hours.html

https://www.newscientist.com/article...ution-of-life/

[dogpet]

It's a mackerel all those potholes in the roads round here have been designed to hold those exact shaped puddles. How do they do that?

[Smellyoldgit]

These jesus junky fuckheads really do get on my fucking tits!
Mr IQ66 is oh so desperate to somehow cram his fuckface god into things it has no need to be near.
Everything he's pissing about with is well documented, searchable and even in dummy form for the cranially challenged.
I'll be glad when my ribs get better so I can get out more and leave the fucknugget to others who may be bothered!

[JerryJohn]

hertz vanrental wrote

The reverse can happen you bitter, twisted old hag. There you are, now, believing, like you do, in the sky fairy. All seems well. The sun is out, the sky is blue and your sky fairy, you mistakenly believe, is in his heaven.

We now run the clock forward.

You are on your death bed.

You go into a blind panic because you suddenly realise you have never had any proof of your god and that he doesn't exist and that means there is no afterlife. The only life you will ever have lies in the few minutes you have left. You realise that you have wasted your life praying to a fictitious sky fairy. In fact, you have wasted your life full stop. Now, there's nothing more to be done. Game over. A life wasted. You die in complete and utter despair for you realise this is it - no more - only, well, nothingness. Just like the nothingness that you didn't experience before you were born.

Me, I'll die happy. By the time I get to my grave, I will have lived LIFE and my body will be a wreck. I do not intend to be the fittest corpse in the graveyard. I will have also taken the piss out of many a christard. That makes me happy because I will have given you bastards all that you deserve.

I will go gentle into that good night. You, I suspect, will not.

Why the hell would you say my life was wasted. Even if at the end of day you are correct and there is no God, (of course you are wrong, the Bible says so) why would my life be 'wasted.' I've greatly enjoyed my life as a Christian.

All of my dreams have come true. I have a wonderful, Christian wife and children who are doing well in life and are also Christian, same denomination as dear ole' Dad. That's the important part. I've always wanted to own my own business and now I do , free and clear. I have great friends, relatives and a family at Church.

I can't imagine anything better.

Are you projecting your own measly miserable life onto me or what? You weirdo. What do you have in your life. Drugs to take the edge of deadness off or what?

Mary.