patrick.net

PeopleUnited says

clearly a catastrophic event the buried the organisms in the first place. You ask an evolutionary scientist how they age the layers and they will tell you that the age of the layers is determined by which fossils are found in each layer. If you ask them how they know the age the the fossil, they will say it is based on the layer in which it is found. They are circular reasoning professionals!

That's a false and misleading summary. You could really benefit from reading Dawkins or something outside of whatever echo chamber has misled you. Radiometric and other methods enable dating fossils and geologic layers.

Many fossils are of sea animals, not killed by floods; they died, settled to the bottom, and got buried in sediment. Others died other ways, e.g. landslides or volcanic ash. Layers can be determined by volcanic eruptions, asteroid impacts, and other events that spread material over a wide area. Many floods have occurred, over billions of years.

PeopleUnited says

So fortune teller

That's a nice try ... it's not clairvoyance (and thus you can't burn Strategist at the stake), it's called human psychology. You simply put in different surroundings and watch the person's psyche unfold.

And if I were born a Saudi, it's simple ... take the causeway to Bahrain on weekends ... drink and screw hoes there, where it's a former British colony.

Yes PeopleUnited, you'd be a cleric, and be involved in events just like in the "Death of a Princess" ...

https://patrick.net/1306834/2017-05-30-saudi-arabia-s-death-of-a-princess-needs-its-own-thread

PeopleUnited says

So fortune teller

Wait, aren't you also channeling a spirit entity claiming to be the messenger of god?

PeopleUnited says

Sometimes the subject of science is to use circular reasoning to proclaim a predetermined "truth."

You know even less of science than you do of your religion. The hypocrisy of accusing scientists of using circular reasoning is astonishing. Everything you believe is based on circular reasoning. I know god exists because the Bible says so. I know the Bible is right because it's the unerring word of god. What a load of crap.

PeopleUnited says

For example, the true scientists looks at billions of dead things, buried in rock layers, laid down by water, all over the earth and sees this as evidence of a worldwide flood.

No, that's not the case. This is why you cannot cite a single peer review scientific paper that says that.

Often bodies of water dry up, land moves great distances over the eons, and sediment is laid down. None of these things imply a world-wide flood, certainly not one less than 6,000 years ago.

PeopleUnited says

The "evolutionary" scientist views the fossils and says that billions of years passed between the deposition of the animals in each layer

Can you get even one fact right? No evolutionary scientist says there are billions (American billions, not British) of years between two animal species because the first multi-cellular organisms only arose about 600 million years ago.

If your going to attempt to challenge the Theory of Evolution -- a fool's errand given the plethora of evidence confirming it -- then you should at least learn the subject. All this knowledge is easily available on the Internet. You can literally learn everything there is to know what butt-naked on your couch. There's no excuse for such ignorance when learning doesn't even require the effort to put on pants.

PeopleUnited says

ou ask an evolutionary scientist how they age the layers and they will tell you that the age of the layers is determined by which fossils are found in each layer. If you ask them how they know the age the the fossil, they will say it is based on the layer in which it is found. They are circular reasoning professionals!

More willful ignorance on your part.

Radioactive decay is the most common method of dating materials. However, when the age of a species has already been determined, that knowledge can be used to date other material in which the fossils of that species has been found in lieu of radioactive dating. This is not circular reasoning. Here's how it works.

T-Rex remains are found in material that can be radioactively dated with great precision. Enough samples are found to determine that T-Rexes lived between 65 to 70 million years ago. The great extinction event caused by a meteor crashing into the Yucatan peninsula wiped out T-Rexes. The evolution of the T-Rex line shows the differences between that lineage before 70 million years ago and after 70 million years ago.

Some T-Rex bones are found in material that cannot be radioactively dated. The bones are in the form that T-Rex, not its ancestors, took. Therefore, the material is between 65 to 70 million years old.

This is linear deductive reasoning, not circular logic. I should not have to explain this to any adult. It does not require a lot of intelligence to understand how this works.

PeopleUnited says

This mud tended to bury the animals that lived at lower elevation such as on or near the ocean floor, deeper than the animals that lived on the shore. And the animals that lived on the shore tended to be buried deeper than the animals that lived further upland, just as you would expect in the event of a world wild catastrophic flood.

Again, you are ignorant of the science. What was once the ocean floor can end up on a mountain because of plate tectonics.

It's complete delusion to think some guy on an ark had two of every species and repopulated the Earth with them. This completely batshit crazy belief demonstrate that Christianity causes people to become brainwashed, delusional, and incapable of grasping reality.

Dan8267 says

You know even less of science than you do of your religion. The hypocrisy of accusing scientists of using circular reasoning is astonishing. Everything you believe is based on circular reasoning. I know god exists because the Bible says so. I know the Bible is right because it's the unerring word of god. What a load of crap.

Dan, PU's reasoning is beaten, just by the mere existence of Zoroastrianism. Someone wrote the unplagiarized "Book of Revelations" in ancient Persian, long before the coming of the Roman Empire. It specifically talks about the role of the Savior, "Saoshyant" in the Avestan language. Yes, the idea of the savior was suppose to be unique to Christianity when that idea was around for a full millennia plus before the so-called historic Christ, even outside of the Bible.

And then, did PU channel some entity, claiming to be the representation of the Holy Spirit or Jesus himself during some prayer or meditation? If so, well, how's that any different than what happened to Paul, the 13th disciple who'd never met Jesus in the flesh?

And then, where is our great Josephus Flavinus, the historian of the times? Was he not able to corroborate Christ's existence?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus_on_Jesus

"Scholarly opinion varies on the total or partial authenticity of the reference in Book 18, Chapter 3, 3 of the Antiquities, a passage that states that Jesus the Messiah was a wise teacher who was crucified by Pilate, usually called the Testimonium Flavianum.[4][5][1] The general scholarly view is that while the Testimonium Flavianum is most likely not authentic in its entirety, it is broadly agreed upon that it originally consisted of an authentic nucleus, which was then subject to Christian expansion/alteration.[5][6][7][8][9][10] "

Remember, Joe was born 37 AD. At best, he'd get 2nd or 3rd hand information.

If anything, this whole enchilada sounds like the story of Paul Bunyan and his blue ox, Babe. Guess how we know about the existence of Mr Bunyan? Because someone hinted that he was friends with Daniel Boone. Well that clears things up.

I'm yet to see a blue ox so I suppose that Babe never had any descendants.

Rin says

Paul Bunyan and his blue ox, Babe

You can check him out near the Redwoods in CA

And Jesus, down in Rio, when you're not at a brothel there ...

Rin says

Dan, PU's reasoning is beaten, just by the mere existence of Zoroastrianism.

Yes, Christianity plagiarized many, many religions including Zoroastrianism. Flood myths, a god's son being sacrificed, a fall from grace, all are plagiarized.

PeopleUnited says

Dear PeopleUnited,


If you were born in Saudi Arabia, you would be an Imam preaching hate and violence. You would proudly ask your followers to become suicide bombers.

So fortune teller, what would you be if you were born in Saudi?

I would still be an atheist. However, I would pretend to be a Muslim and yell "Allah ho Akbar" like the other clowns.

Rin says

That's a nice try ... it's not clairvoyance (and thus you can't burn Strategist at the stake), it's called human psychology. You simply put in different surroundings and watch the person's psyche unfold.

And if I were born a Saudi, it's simple ... take the causeway to Bahrain on weekends ... drink and screw hoes there, where it's a former British colony.

Yes PeopleUnited, you'd be a cleric, and be involved in events just like in the "Death of a Princess" ...

That's a great idea. I would join you in Bahrain. May I suggest we find a way to get to America, and give a finger to Islam?

Strategist says

I would still be an atheist. However, I would pretend to be a Muslim and yell "Allah ho Akbar" like the other clowns.

...and try to emigrate to a country with fewer Muslims, and then emigrate again to a third country with even fewer Muslims, as Ayaan Hirsi Ali had to do, then hope that third country doesn't import so many Muslims as to require you to emigrate yet again.

Dan8267 says

PeopleUnited says

For example, the true scientists looks at billions of dead things, buried in rock layers, laid down by water, all over the earth and sees this as evidence of a worldwide flood.

No, that's not the case. This is why you cannot cite a single peer review scientific paper that says that.

Often bodies of water dry up, land moves great distances over the eons, and sediment is laid down. None of these things imply a world-wide flood, certainly not one less than 6,000 years ago.

Hey PU, do you know the grand canyon was under water millions of years ago? That's how sedimentary rocks are formed.

curious2 says

Strategist says

I would still be an atheist. However, I would pretend to be a Muslim and yell "Allah ho Akbar" like the other clowns.

...and try to emigrate to a country with fewer Muslims, and then emigrate again to a third country with even fewer Muslims, as Ayaan Hirsi Ali had to do, then hope that third country doesn't import so many Muslims as to require you to emigrate yet again.

I would also change my name from Mohammad to Mark. Imagine being named after a fucking pedophile.

Strategist says

I would also change my name from Mohammad to Mark. Imagine being named after a fucking pedophile.

I did fuck someone, aged 18 to 19, does that make me a pseudo-pedophile, even though I was 18 at the time?

Remember, Femi-Nazis are very particular about these things.

Today, on the average, it's ages 22 to 32. But if she's older than 32, I don't do wrinkled chicks!

Realize, J Lo is 40-50 but I'd still boink her.

Rin says

I did fuck someone, aged 18 to 19, does that make me a pseudo-pedophile, even though I was 18 at the time?

Nope. It makes you a horny teenager.

Rin says

Today, on the average, it's ages 22 to 32. But if she's older than 32, I don't do wrinkled chicks!

The older chicks are more experienced. Do want to have fun or not?

Strategist says

Rin says

I did fuck someone, aged 18 to 19, does that make me a pseudo-pedophile, even though I was 18 at the time?

Nope. It makes you a horny teenager.

But what about morality and family values?

Strategist says

Rin says

Today, on the average, it's ages 22 to 32. But if she's older than 32, I don't do wrinkled chicks!

The older chicks are more experienced. Do want to have fun or not?

Dude, I don't want wrinkles. This a where someone like Jennifer Lopez excels.

Rin says

Nope. It makes you a horny teenager.

But what about morality and family values?

Sex between consenting adults is not immoral. Society telling you when, how, with whom, and why is immoral.

Strategist says

The older chicks are more experienced.

Youth will beat experience any day.

Dan8267 says

Strategist says

The older chicks are more experienced.

Youth will beat experience any day.

Who is more likely to give a better BJ? A woman who has never done it? Or a woman who has been doing it every day for the past 10 years?

Strategist says

Who is more likely to give a better BJ? A woman who has never done it? Or a woman who has been doing it every day for the past 10 years?

Depends on what you mean by "better". To me, the better blow job is the one I enjoy more, not necessarily the one with better technique. I'm sure Bea Arthur can gum the shit out of you, but I personally would not enjoy that. I'd be much happier with a mediocre blow job from Scarlett Johansson. The biggest and most important sex organ is the brain. Sex is mostly mental.