Mindboggling result of Ribosomal RNA sequence analysis

[Sparhafoc]

again given that C is you answer,

you are granting that there is a possibility worthy of consideration that the universe is eternal.

You are either thick beyond comprehension, or the most pernicious liar I have ever met.

The answer C does not, in any way shape or form, lend itself towards any given position, and specifically NOT to the manufactured and ignorant binary you formulated.

Quite the contrary - it specifically refuses to take a position because of a lack of evidence.

You cannot bullshit your way out of this.

You cannot tell me what my position is.

You will lend me the most elementary modicum of respect necessary to engage honestly in a discussion forum or I will dedicate all of my posts to fucking with you like you fuck with everyone else.

Lie about my position again, and I will ask the moderators to intervene, because this is beyond perverse now.

and if the universe is eternal it would follow that everything in the universe is (or at least could be) eternal

Reasserting a non-sequitur without any substantiation is exactly what makes LEROY so utterly incapable of reasoned discourse.

No, this does not stand to reason.

this is just a natural consequence if you what to answer C

Abject fucking idiocy.

C states 'I don't know, and nor does anyone else because we have no fucking evidence whatsoever' - you are still trying to force me to take position B.

I refuse to take position B.

You cannot sneakily trick me into taking position B.

No matter how often you repeat this bullshit, it stands only as testimony to your discursive malfeasance and says nothing about my position whatsoever.

if this doesn't represent your view, then you most drop C and grant premise 2 in the KCA

Lying little LEROY is back lying again. What a surprise.

Your bullshit doesn't represent C - your bullshit is the A/B false dichotomy I defeated with C.

Lie to my face again, LEROY.

 

[Sparhafoc]

We all know of the failed science experiments to create life

Name one.

 

[Sparhafoc]

Therefore to say life is not eternal = faith

"Life is eternal" is a claim.

Want people to accept your claim?

Provide evidence or argumentation.

Believing claims without evidence is faith.

 

[Sparhafoc]

Life from mon life = faith

Thank God I'm not a big banger

Perhaps, but you are a vacuous troll who has, for some bizarre egotistical reason, decided to come back 2 years after getting spanked to fuck around with strangers on the internet.

Sad, sorry, silly little being.

 

[Sparhafoc]

if we define eternal as "existing from past infinity" and if the universe is eternal, then everything in the universe necessarily has to be eternal.

Still an illogical non-sequitur no matter how many times you repeat it and no matter how many colours you use to highlight words.

the big bang and all other events necessarily have to be eternal, if you start counting time from "infinity past" then any event in time would have ocurre an infinite amount of time ago

And LEROY's trying to be WLC again.

Here's the truth about LEROY's cross-threading.

LEROY demands that we take either position A or position B.

A is the position he wants to forward, B is the position he's prepared an argument against (actually, he's simply lifting WLC's arguments and capitulating them without even WLC's pathetic level of comprehension.

A = the universe had a cause
B = the universe didn't have a cause

LEROY wants people to take B because he will then smuggle in the arguments against an eternal universe.

In reality, C is the way to defeat an argument from ignorance - by showing that there is insufficient evidence to accept either of the false dichotomy positions.

As such, LEROY spent dozens of pages trying to claim that my point was disallowed on technical reasons, dozens of pages pretending that my position was something else, and LEROY is still lying about my position here, trying to pretend I took position B rather than the default position I actually took - not enough evidence, no one knows, including LEROY.

As LEROY got spanked in his own thread, it would be perplexing as to why he needs to bring the argument over here, expect that anyone familiar with LEROY's posting behavior will know intimately that he is slippery, mendacious, and lacking in even an atom of discursive honesty, and as such, he thinks he can post lies here and that people will have forgotten the truth of the argument.

What's truly perplexing is that he still thinks he can lie to me about my position and that I will somehow fail to notice and thereby accept the lie.

No, he doesn't because what you're saying doesn't make sense

exactly, this is why the universe can not be eternal, because that would have implications that doesn't make any sense.

LEROY - it's what YOU are saying that makes no sense, not what I said.

+given this definition, God would not be eternal (just anticipating)

All aboard the Woo Train.

 

[Sparhafoc]

don't feel lonely

almost nobody form this forum grants the Big Bang,

Typical LEROY.

Asserts other peoples' positions for them.

The assertion of other peoples' position is wholly bullshit.

 

[Sparhafoc]

I have requested to the mods that this thread be split in two from this post on as I'd like to preserve the original discussion.

Another thread can be created with the argument we are having about creationism, big bang cosmology and abiogenesis.

Yes, good plan Rum.

This thread is clearly causing some people concern, which is why they're going out of their way to spoil it.

 

[Sparhafoc]

Life is an atheist problem.... not a Christian one

:lol:

Well, Christians like you perhaps.

Really, the nature of the universe and the predicament of life is something all intelligent people care about.

 

[Sparhafoc]

[I do. But I suspect you don't actually know what that term means, and you probably think it means the universe had a beginning, is that correct?

what the BB theory states is that everything in the physical world (including space and time) cam in to being from a singularity.


most member form this don't grant it

Stop lying about other peoples' positions.

The garbled bollocks you offer is never going to be other peoples' positions because LEROY is special and needs special words to support his special arguments.

For the rest of us, the notion that the universe 'came into being from a singularity' is illegible nonsense.

Of course, that doesn't mean we deny the Big Bang or the expansion of the universe, just that we're not so feeble of comprehension as to capitulate it as poorly as you.

 

[Sparhafoc]

Apparently a scientific problem for you.

Not for me. Sorry

Aye, which is why science has so dramatically changed the world offering so many useful applications, extending our expected life-span by double, curing diseases, and putting food on our tables.... and Christianity hasn't offered jack shit except for justification for murdering witches and people who believe in a slightly different form of Christianity.

 

[Sparhafoc]

if the universe has excised from infinite past, then all the events within the universe would have had to ocurre an infinite amount of time ago including the origin or life, the cooling of space and all that stuff that you mentioned.

if you start your time line form - Infinity (note the negative sign) then there will never be a point where you reached something like "a finite amount of time ago" all events would have to occur an infinite amount of time ago.

Does anyone else finds it fascinating that this somehow makes sense in Leroy's mind?

Being completely wrong but being supremly confidant you are right.
Spouting nonsense while believing you're being sensical.
I truly wonder how that works.

As far as I am concerned, it doesn't make sense in LEROY's mind either - he's recapitulating some bullshit he's uncritically swallowed and didn't understand in the first instance. It's a faith position like all of LEROY's positions.

 

[Sparhafoc]

Mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

http://leagueofreason.org.uk/viewtopic.php?p=178291#p178291

Well I never!

 

[Gnug215]

I know all you have is yourself... I have bible ☺

Mod Note:

You also seem to have a pacifier, Bernhard.

This is a separate warning from the one in the "Monkey" thread:

Stop being a one-sentenced boinkhead with nothing to offer.

This is your first (in this regard) and final warning.

 

[Rumraket]

Gnug can you split the thread from this post on? There's no reason to have it polluted by creationist nonsense.

 

[leroy]

Our continuum is only 13.8 billion years old - therefore, life cannot be eternal, since it only exists in our continuum since the conditions for life became possible.

Our time-frame - the only one of which we're aware - is finite.

Whatever exists outside our time-frame has no effect on our experience of time.

In other words, no matter how much "time" - or not - has passed until the BB, we're only aware of 13.8 billion years (or thereabouts).

Kindest regards,

James

again, how can that be possible? if the universe is eternal, how can our continuum be 13.8B years old?


if a cause took place an infinite amount of time ago, any effect that follows would also have occurred an infinite amount of time ago.

given that supposedly our momentum is an effect that followed from a causes that took place at ]-[/color]infinity, our momento would also have to come in to being an infinite amount of time ago

 

[Sparhafoc]

again, how can that be possible? if the universe is eternal, how can our continuum be 13.8B years old?

Because, LEROY, whatever state our universe arose in would still be called 'the universe' - it's a problem with words more than anything.

Personally, I call the greater notion 'cosmos' and our expansion 'universe'.

Hackenslash does exactly the opposite.

There is no proper word, so instead we explain what we mean.

You could try asking people what they mean rather than making up what they mean for them and then arguing with them about it.

Well, you could if honest dialogue was your agenda.

if a cause took place an infinite amount of time ago, any effect that follows would also have occurred an infinite amount of time ago.

given that supposedly our momentum is an effect that followed from a causes that took place at ]-[/color]infinity, our momento would also have to come in to being an infinite amount of time ago

And none of this provides a jot of support for your contention that, therefore, everything within the universe would also be eternal.


Regardless, it's irrelevant. No one actually knows about anything other than our expansion. That's the only honest position any contemporary human being could take.

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

Our continuum is only 13.8 billion years old - therefore, life cannot be eternal, since it only exists in our continuum since the conditions for life became possible.

Our time-frame - the only one of which we're aware - is finite.

Whatever exists outside our time-frame has no effect on our experience of time.

In other words, no matter how much "time" - or not - has passed until the BB, we're only aware of 13.8 billion years (or thereabouts).

Kindest regards,

James

again, how can that be possible? if the universe is eternal, how can our continuum be 13.8B years old?

if a cause took place an infinite amount of time ago, any effect that follows would also have occurred an infinite amount of time ago.

given that supposedly our momentum is an effect that followed from a causes that took place at ]-[/color]infinity, our momento would also have to come in to being an infinite amount of time ago

No.

We're only aware of things since the Big Bang - anything before that is unknown to us.

The difference between infinity and infinity plus 13.8 billion years is only 13.8 billion years.

But you're misunderstanding the fundamental point:

To talk about "time" before the Big Bang is incoherent.

I'm sure hackenslash could explain this better than I - and, indeed, probably has in one of his blog posts.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[leroy]

What's truly perplexing is that he still thinks he can lie to me about my position and that I will somehow fail to notice and thereby accept the lie.

.

Again, this is not a controversial point.


By affirming C you are granting that both t A and B are probably true and worthy of consideration.


If I ask you>

are you going to eat pizza for lunch?

A yes

B no


and your answer is C, what you are implying is that Both A and B are realistic possibilities.


but you can always correct me and explain what would C mean in this example

 

[leroy]

No.

We're only aware of things since the Big Bang - anything before that is unknown to us.

The difference between infinity and infinity plus 13.8 billion years is only 13.8 billion years.

But you're misunderstanding the fundamental point:

To talk about "time" before the Big Bang is incoherent.

I'm sure hackenslash could explain this better than I - and, indeed, probably has in one of his blog posts.

Kindest regards,

James

No, both infinity and infinity plus 13.8 billion are the same number (infinity) this is why infinity is an incoherent number when you tray to represent real stuff. (time and seconds for example)

do you agree with this statement?

if a cause took place an infinite amount of time ago, any effect that follows would also have occurred an infinite amount of time ago

To talk about "time" before the Big Bang is incoherent.

granted, that is my point

 

[Sparhafoc]

Again, this is not a controversial point.


By affirming C you are granting that both t A and B are probably true and worthy of consideration.

No, I am not.

What I am expressly doing is saying that we don't know anything useful. We do not have any means of inquiring into the claim. It therefore cannot be accepted as a postulate. All we can do is speculate.

If I ask you>

are you going to eat pizza for lunch?

A yes

B no


and your answer is C, what you are implying is that Both A and B are realistic possibilities.

:lol: :lol:

LEROY please stop embarrassing yourself.

If I say C - I don't eat pizza, then neither A nor B are possible, realistic or otherwise.

Similarly, if I'd never heard of pizza, then your question would be built on a faulty assumption.

Finally, if no one had ever heard of pizza, then your question would be meaningless - replace pizza with 'flufflewiff' and see how well it works.

but you can always correct me and explain what would C mean in this example

:lol:

Like that's ever worked. LEROY thinks LEROY is the fulcrum of understanding, and therefore he's not amenable to changing his mind based on what lesser beings say.