Recent Comments

1. about 11 hours ago on Loose Parts

   Well, the box was in the shape of a heart… and the source of that “beef”….

2. about 12 hours ago on Calvin and Hobbes

   “It is apparent from your posts that you wish to dictate that others cannot do that, using the power of the State.”

   You know Robert, the truth is you don’t listen, and you don’t learn.

   First, I am non-political, so I don’t use “the power of the State”… for anything. Yet again you make false assumptions and put words in other people’s mouths. That’s a really bad habit of yours.

   “I disproved your claim, whether you accept it or not.”

   No, you did not. You provided some obscure supposed references without actually providing the source. My response was that considering the inaccuracy and false accusations consistently present in your posts, failing to cite source material made your personal interpretation of data suspect. You “disproved” nothing; you merely posted more of your opinions… yet again.

   I’ve already answered your false accusation that I am “dictating” to people. There is no need for me to continue answering such repeatedly fraudulent accusations. That kind of debate quickly becomes an exercise in futility. In forum after forum, despite person after person debunking your claims… you never change. You keep blundering along with the same bad posting methods.

   I should know by now that debating with you is like debating with dense stone. You never listen, and you never learn. So I’m done here. Argue to the wall.

3. about 12 hours ago on Calvin and Hobbes

   “It is apparent from your posts that you wish to dictate that others cannot do that, using the power of the State.”

   You know Robert, the truth is you don’t listen, and you don’t learn.

   First, I am non-political, so I don’t use “the power of the State”… for anything. Yet again you make false assumptions and put words in other people’s mouths. That’s a really bad habit of yours.

   “I disproved your claim, whether you accept it or not.”

   No, you did not. You provided some obscure supposed references without actually providing the source. My response was that considering the inaccuracy and false accusations consistently present in your posts, failing to cite source material made your personal interpretation of data suspect. You “disproved” nothing; you merely posted more of your opinions… yet again.

   I’ve already answered your false accusation that I am “dictating” to people. There is no need for me to continue answering such repeatedly fraudulent accusations. That kind of debate quickly becomes an exercise in futility. In forum after forum, despite person after person debunking your claims… you never change. You keep blundering along with the same bad posting habits.

   I’m done here. I should know by now that debating with you is like debating with dense stone. The stone doesn’t listen, and it never learns.

4. about 12 hours ago on Pearls Before Swine

   “I’m into math so the idea that extremely large or small numbers equate to impossible doesn’t really work for me. 20^200 power exists. It looks to be roughly 10^260 power… That’s not “infinity”.”

   I of course didn’t indicate such was infinity. What I stated was that it was a number so large it boggles the mind (as in several billion universes full of atoms). How many universes? Approximately 1.6^207 universes. (That is 20^200 / 10^53.) If you’re into math, you have some idea of how staggeringly great that number is. So the argument / claim that such is “improbable but still possible” really goes against scientific logic. Science does recognize there are probability limits that are so remote they become impossible.

   But as I’ve already stated more than once, take that single impossibility and multiply it by the requirement of two dozen enzymes, all in the same place and time, all perfectly compatible, and it literally becomes absurdity stacked upon absurdity.

   Not to be blunt but to put it plainly: abiogenesis is not science. It is anti-science, throwing the principles of physical science out the window in favor of human opinion. The concept of abiogenesis is imaginative fiction, human philosophy without basis in reality. I’m not exaggerating here. That is the reality of the concept of abiogenesis. It is a made-up, scientific fairy-tale, without a shred of scientific proof, possibly conceived by earnest people who wished to break away from the shackles of false religion.

   People can claim otherwise all they want, but that will not change reality, logic, math, statistics, or science itself. 20^200 for one enzyme isn’t the full equation; it is just a diving board into a much larger pool of false conjecture. When one wraps their head around all that and realizes the reality of reality then they can start thinking along more fruitful lines of what is actually possible, and perhaps discover truth.

5. about 13 hours ago on Pearls Before Swine

   That was a rather good and valid post. I especially enjoyed the point;

   “I don’t think everything can be explained scientifically.”

   Whether one believes in abiogenesis or creation, that statement holds true. Observable science, and science itself, is not the answer to everything. I tend to define science as, the aspects of physical reality that we have discovered or are discoverable. Obviously there is much yet to be discovered… and much that is not physical in nature and can’t be discovered by science alone. And as scripture states, “Mankind will never understand the complete workings of God from beginning to end.” We simply don’t have the capacity… and some of those workings are far beyond our science or perceptions.

   “Because for some scientism just is reality and this is important to them. They see it as giving them freedom from religion, which they dislike, and from false hopes.”

   Again an astute observation. Given the history of religion in general, one can certainly understand people’s strong desire to break away from it. In fact the Bible states that discovering the actual truth of God is gaining freedom from the false teachings of religion. When God himself states that mankind has been enslaved by false religion and speaks of mankind as being held captive to it and needing to break free… there’s certainly no disagreement there:

   “Get out of her, my people, if you do not want to share with her in her sins, and if you do not want to receive part of her plagues."

6. about 13 hours ago on Pearls Before Swine

   I know you are one of those people that always has to have the last comment, so I am not coming back here. (Stated to Old Geek.)

   Some would consider that a rude and very unfair statement. It seems more like you trying to have the last comment and then flouncing.

   Old Geek is a person of few words and astute observations. Sometimes he and I agree in concept, sometimes not. But I have never known him to be rude or offensive. He certainly can hit the nail on the head, as he did twice when he replied to lengthy comments as “Just assumptions” and “More assumptions”. He was correct. Those posts had made statement after statement that had no evidence behind them, but were merely statements of pure assumption, conjecture and personal opinion. I wish I had his art for simplicity of valid statement. ; )

   If there is one thing I would say about Old Geek: he is not a person who has to have the last word. He is however a person who with a word or two can debunk a faulty assumption or debate . It is observable that some do not appreciate that astute skill.

7. about 13 hours ago on Pearls Before Swine

   I agree with you fully, that testing the concept of abiogenesis is, by scientific method, conceivably a valid endeavor. Kinda. Because myself, I would do the math first and then realize that spending money on any research in that direction would be absolutely futile. (Again, if something is impossible, no amount of research will make it possible.) A house without a foundation quickly crumbles. To attempt to build a house without a foundation is a waste of time and money. That’s how I view abiogenesis.

   I’ve told atheists / evolutionists many times: I don’t require or insist that people believe in God. They should, but God himself allows them to make that decision. Again, free will. But by all means… please don’t buy the scientific fairy tale of abiogenesis. If one is going to choose to not believe in God, at least pursue study of something that is actually within the realm of potential reality.

   But I’ve also stated (even in this discussion): if scientists world-wide put as much time and money and research into discovering proof of intentional design and creation… they would quickly and easily find thousands and millions of pieces of valid evidence of such. And while they may not be able to witness the actual creation event at this time… they would certainly find evidence of such, repeatedly. There is no lack of evidence.

   Why do they not do so? Because governments don’t provide grants to those who work at proving the existence of intentional creation. Governments want to be the ultimate authority. The concept of God does not line up with that agenda. (Although certainly, governments throughout history have used religion and “God” to promote their own agenda. “Rule by Divine Right” etc.)

   Those who claim there “is no evidence of creation” are simply wrong. The evidence is plentiful; their personal decision to ignore or deny such evidence is irrelevant to anyone but themselves and those they pull down with them.

8. 1 day ago on Pearls Before Swine

   Follow-up, totally off-subject but just an observation:

   I like science, quite a lot. What we have learned using true science is just amazing. That said, one of my favorite points in scientific history was when Einstein discovered that time is not constant— blowing a huge hole in a whole lot of scientific “certainty” up to that time. He demonstrated that science can be so very very certain of something, and yet be totally wrong.

   It’s not that this is a bad thing. Einstein’s discovery— using mathematics— solved a lot of hitherto unsolved scientific quandaries, and opened up a whole lot of new science. It also established one of the ground rules of science: that science can be wrong, but can also be updated (and should be). This is part of what makes science fascinating. And it is no different from the rest of humanity. Any of us can be wrong, mistaken, believe something that isn’t quite right. It’s the learning— along with the humility to re-think and learn more— that makes life interesting.

   This however, is where many people fail. They forget the part about “science can be wrong”… and present that their current “scientific” beliefs are absolutely, 100% without any uncertainty correct. People often forget the part of scientific method that requires we consider alternatives to existing thought, even if we think the current evidence is immutable.

   They thought the consistency of time immutable too… but Einstein blew a great big gigantic hole in that. Which is why I enjoy his work so greatly: It serves as a reminder that science can be useless and even detrimental without an open mind regularly questioning if our current science is accurate. Einstein had the open mind to ask that question, and discovered one of the scientific gems of the century.

   That is, if what I read of Einstein is accurate. ;D

9. 1 day ago on Pearls Before Swine

   That’s an astute observation. Both fear and desire would seem the basis of a lot of human beliefs, denials, and opinions. They want to believe things that make life easier for them, that means they’re responsible to no authority but themselves, that in their mind is the path of least resistance… regardless of consequences.

   This is evident even in religion, which as you’re probably aware I’ve stated numerous times is a creation of man, not God. That doesn’t mean there is no good religion; it just means the vast majority of it is full of untruth and agendas. People go to a church not because they believe its teachings, but because it offers them some social advantage or because they errantly believe that “all religions lead to heaven”. Mankind is nothing if not blunderingly diverse. A friend of mine once questioned if anyone on Earth is truly, 100% sane. ;D

   This noted, one might wonder why someone insists on a fantasy-based concept that leads to inevitable death over a teaching that leads to eternal life. What’s more, they even insist the no-future concept is absolutely, without doubt correct and insult those who believe differently. Misery loves company, perhaps?

   The bottom line is that abiogenesis is not science; it is philosophy. There really is no science behind the concept that life could just accidentally come from non-life. It is pure conjecture, given the facade of science when in truth, no real science is involved in the abiogenesis claim. The belief in abiogenesis and evolution offers no future. Current society is obviously failing. “Civilization” is anything but civilized. Truly what the scriptures prophesied is true, that mankind would be “not open to any agreement, slanderers, without self-control, fierce, without love of goodness, headstrong, puffed up with pride, lovers of pleasures rather than lovers of God,”

   Truly, right on the button.

10. 1 day ago on Calvin and Hobbes

    “Spare me the usual “owning a gun is evil and unjustified” leftist nonsense.”

    I never said that. As is your habit, you put words in my mouth. I have owned many guns. I just never walked around in public carrying one, intending to defend myself using “lethal force”.

    Your statement suggests that lethal force is the only solution to self-defense. Many would disagree with that. Regarding your claim that homicide rates are identical in non-gun states (along with other claims), I will not discredit that claim but I would have to see validated statistics to believe it. By validated, I mean the actual research, not something posted on some random website.

    “you have NO business dictating the same attitude to others. That is ANTI LIFE.”

    Certainly an emotional response. But I’ve “dictated” nothing. (Can you say the same?) I’ve simply stated available research on gun laws. What you do is your choice.

    " By your logic, the Nazis should have been free to murder millions with no resistance, because they would “pay later”."

    Yet another emotional hyperbole. No, that is not correct. War environment is not the same as conducting oneself in daily life in a relatively peaceful environment. You’re not making even similar comparisons. That said… there are many people who are against war, and to this day, world-wide, people who rightly question the dropping of nuclear weapons on the largely-civilian populations of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

    I have noticed in your posts you often become emotional and go off on tangents that are far removed from the discussion. You claim people say things they didn’t say, and you make observably invalid comparisons. These extremes of viewpoint neither convince nor prove anything. I will not deny your references, because I haven’t observed the original studies. But I would tend to doubt their validity / interpretation based simply on the general attitude exhibited in your posts, which you consistently make personal.