Proof That Evolution Is A Scam

Plural =More than 1 in number

and it was maths/IT but its ok, not the first time you claim something different and are wrong

 

They arent of today, anyone who thinks the abraham in genesis is the same in the jewish scriptures and if either are the same as the abraham in Islam clearly has no knowledge of religion

and that marriage bit doesnt apply today

 

But I don't believe that there is a god or gods, as there's no evidence to suggest otherwise.
I really don't understand why you're struggling with this so badly.

No, it clearly, inarguably isn't.

Yep. It's still wrong.

You made the claim that I did and now you want me to prove it?

And this is relevant to your point because...?

It's not true anyway, so does it matter? You only worked out how to PM about a week ago! IT teacher, my arse.

Because...?

 

because they can't understand what it actually is and how it manages to affect everything, therefore they have made up rules which don't work out so they have to change the rules about.

oh, and Poll, here you go http://gizmodo.com/5908206/did-scientists-really-just-break-the-speed-of-light
C has been broken.

 

They are not the people of the book, explained before I believe

 

"All lies in jest,
til a man hears what he wants to hear,
and disregards the rest."

 

What a ****ing mess.
Can't you just quote the point you are addressing/replying to instead of quoting the whole post?

 

I am an Atheist.

Always have been , always will be..'

Laq

 

This is turning into a Ecumenical matter!

 

You don't seem to be able to see the difference between the two statements, Fan.
There is a total lack of evidence as to the existence of a god, so until there is some, I don't believe that one exists.
That's not a claim that there are no gods. They could exist, but we have no reason to believe that they do, at present.

You're just clearly wrong, here.
Where in my comment did you get, "impossible to know whether there is a God"?
It's simply not there.

Lack of belief in god = atheist.

Virtually everything that you say.

As usual, you're trying to get me to say something that I haven't said.
Can you try to avoid using a strawman for every single argument with me, please?
You have claimed that I've used the multiverse as a proven, factually thing. Prove it.

Straight over your head, again.
What relevance does the word plural have to do with your claim that a multiverse is referred to in the Quran?

What the hell are you on about? I lost track of your Walter Mitty-ims, so now I'm a Jew? WTF?

You don't want to categorise them as such, because you're a bigot.
They clearly are, though.
Did Allah forget to say that they were going to no longer be People of the Book after a while? Only use this rule for 300 years, please.
Laughable.

From that article:
Wait, no. Not that great. The pulse is incredibly short-lived—it takes next to no time for it to propagate the length of its carrier pulse—and it can never really do anything. It starts, then stops. In fact, it's little more than a little mathematical trick. What the scientists are observing here is the propagation of a small scrap of information—so nothing with any matter—moving slightly faster than the speed of light.
While it's tempting to say that this could represent the dawn of data that can move faster than light, that's not really true either. You see, this in fact quantum data: it's not a neat binary bit, a one or a zero, but a blurry mess that could take any value. What's more, we have no control over it.
So yes, something did move faster than the speed of light and it was, this time, real. And, yes, it is impressive in a very abstract physical science kinda way. But it's not going to turn Einstein's theory on its head, nor revolutionize physics. So I wouldn't get too excited.

What part of that has proven that people are wrong with what they currently believe?

 

No, it isn't. I don't believe that any gods exist. That's atheism.
Theism is the belief that a god or gods exist. Atheism is the lack of that belief.

So you're claiming that I've said that the multiverse is a hypothetical suggestion of existence? And? It is. There's no proof of it, though.
I have mentioned abiogenesis and I have always said that it's a hypothesis. What's wrong with that, exactly?
I brought up Sturdy-Colls to counter Krege, as both appear to have the same available data, yet you choose to believe one over the other, which displays your bias and bigotry.

You've claimed to be a lot of things, Fan. Most of them seem like the ravings of a lunatic, so you'll have to forgive me if I forgot which subject you failed to teach.
You've also failed to realise that I haven't defended Israel at all, maintaining the same stance the whole time and saying that there's wrong on both sides.
I've only defended Jews against your claims that the holocaust didn't happen, not the faith itself, which is as invalid as your own.
You see me as a Jew because you hate them and you hate me for pointing out that you talk a lot of **** about them.

Except that none of that is true. It's just your own bias and bigotry wanting to segregate yet another group from your own.
Is anyone actually doing this religion thing right apart from you, in your opinion? Doesn't seem like it.

 

is this still going?

 

No.

 

Yes! And I have proved my point, time and time again, quorn will never replace beef. fact.

 

Does it matter what size it is? how long it is or what it is? the simple fact is IT HAS BEEN BROKEN. Instead of being a man and saying "yes, you are right, I stand corrected, FTL is possible, as scientist have shown"' you try and nit pick. Pointless talking or 'debating' with you as you continue to argue when shown you're wrong.

 

Its fact. The cover on the bible (for example) tells you. ''The King James VERSION''. You can call names all you want. You have been found wanting in your beliefs and arguments. As I said before to you enough rope and you hang yourself. You say I am the bigot yet you are the one who is name calling/labelling etc making you intolerant and fanatical about your beliefs.

A few starting to see through you too

 

I quoted directly from the article that you were using as 'proof' of your claim!
You're using an object with no mass and virtually no information, so it's a tentative step at best.
You're also assuming that anti-gravity technology will be entirely, 100% successful.

Why do you think that the media were all over the claim from earlier in the year, but virtually ignored this more successful experiment?
It didn't do anything to alter the current consensus.
It's interesting, but it's not an enormous breakthrough.