Jump to content
The World News Media


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Posts posted by AlanF

  1. 1 hour ago, Arauna said:

    lol - you do not get it.  The world is soon going to be more totalitarian.....under a technocracy....... and you will love it.  You will love it when others cannot 'buy or sell' because of not accepting the "new post modern morality" which will be forced onto everyone as the family values are being destroyed. Your atheist compatriots will be running the world and will ban all religion.....as they have done in the 20th century in all communist countries..... Here is the catch.  It was prophesied by Jehovah and the enemies of god is going to fulfil every word in revelation 17, & 18.

    Why do I call it atheist neo-communism \ communalism?  I again listened to the poems  of Karl Marx being read this week........ He hated god so much that he swore he would get revenge on god by using an atheist and materialistic philosophy to get control of the entire world ... the second step was to get this " regime / philosophy" to suppress all religions so that no-one can qualify for the grace of god. All people will be forced by the regime to let go of all morals..... as they are doing now. This atheistic philosophy killed 100 million people and was ruthless in the 20th century with gulags, killings and starvation.... this is what is waiting for the world now.

    People who do not go along with the new free for all sexual standards -which will destroy the family - (as china are now separating children from parents) will be cancelled, liquidated and thrown into prison.

    You will feel so happy... I am sure.... but then (if you are still alive) you will see the heavy hand of Jehovah as he annihilates his opposition for once and for all.  When human science and Satan oppress humankind - God will have to step in to save humans from their own sinfulness and wickedness.  Jesus refused the kingdoms of the world when it was offered to him by satan..... this new bunch of technocratic dictators will accept and run the world on materialistic and atheistic lines.  They will even promise people ever lasting life in a computer - lol.

    Have you listened what some of these technocrats are saying about the 4th industrial revolution?

    Still nothing but braindead conspiracy theory garbage.

  2. 2 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

    Two nights ago a CBS News Special interrupted a perfectly fine program that I wanted to see. “Must be important,” I told myself. Instead, it was House politicians carrying the impeachment over to the Senate for their consideration, with much pomp and ceremony of being an ‘historical first,’ even though everyone knew it didn’t stand a chance of going anywhere. And it didn’t. They’re having wet dreams over there at CBS.

    Rand Paul said Did anyone charge Bernie Sanders for inciting the shooting of that Congressman at the softball game? Did anyone charge Maxine Waters with inciting violence when she literally advised persons to confront Trump supporters? That was enough for an entirely predictable outcome to take place, leaving Alan de Fool shaking his head in dismay.

    Continuing the infantile, Trumpolini-supporting nonsense.

    Do you really think that insurrection and the inciting of it should go unpunished? As a dyed-in-the-wool Fox News addict, of course you do!

    And do you really think that your support of insurrection against the U.S. government is conduct becoming of a claimed 'politically neutral' Christian witness of Jehovah? As an unthinking drone, of course you do.

    How are you coming on those probability calculations? Have you figured out yet that they're impossible? And that that's why you can come up with no links to such?

    And of course, you have nothing to say about the lies your idiot compatriot in stupidity has told.

  3. 14 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

    Whoa, you are quick to claim allies. I would not be so quick. I gave you the benefit of the doubt on this one, that is all.

    Look, moron: I just supplied you with some links that prove my point. You're no more my ally than you are a scientist.

    14 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

    How gullible and starved for validation you are.

    LOL! Lame.

    14 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

    I haven’t seen Expelled

    Look at the link I gave you, moron.

    14 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

    and so can offer no opinion on it.

    I don't care about your opinion.

    14 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

    I can’t answer to its “quote mining.”

    Read my post, look at the links, and try to manage to understand, you moron.

    14 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

    But I wrote a post about quote-mining charges against the WT. I came away with the impression that they were pretty lame.

    Far from lame. You sound just like Republican senators excusing Trumpolini for inciting insurrection.

    14 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

      Hello guest!

    Meh. Just as lame as everything else you write.

  4. Despite my and True Tom Harley's pointing out to Arauna that her claim that Richard Dawkins believes in aliens is complete nonsense, she continues to make it. She relies on dishonest, quote-mined Creationist summaries, but never gives links to the original conversation between Richard Dawkins and Ben Stein in the 2008 movie "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed". In this post I give several links and a transcript of the relevant part of the conversation.

    Anyone with at least half a brain will see how dishonest the Creationist summaries -- and Arauna -- are.

    Some months after the release of "Expelled" various Creationists began quoting-mining Dawkins' comments to the effect that he believes that aliens "seeded" life on the earth. He did no such thing, as the transcript below makes clear and that Dawkins has made clear in comments condemning the quote-mining.

    The transcript is from a talk that Dawkins gave titled "Richard Dawkins on The Art of Quote Mining -- Part 3: What Dawkins ACTUALLY said in that Ben Stein Movie":

      Hello guest!
    . After displaying the transcript to his audience Dawkins made some explanatory comments, some of which I include here.

    START time 0:27
    Stein: Well then who did create the heavens and the Earth?
    Dawkins: Why do you use the word 'Who'? You see, you immediately beg the question by using the word 'Who'.
    Stein: Well then how did it get created?
    Dawkins: Well, by a very slow process.
    Stein: Well how did it start?
    Dawkins: Nobody knows how it got started. We know the kind of event that it must have been. We know the sort of event that must have happened for the origin of life.
    Stein: And what was that?
    Dawkins: It was the origin of the first self-replicating molecule.
    Stein: Right, and how did that happen?
    Dawkins: I've told you, we don't know.
    Stein: So you have no idea how it started?
    Dawkins: No. Nor has anybody.
    Stein: Nor has anyone else.

    I have stated that Ben Stein tricked Dawkins into saying things that Stein and his cronies could later twist beyond recognition. Notice that Stein's first question seems innocent enough:

    Stein: What do you think is the possibility that there's an intelligent design might turn out to be the answer to some issues in genetics or Darwinian evolution?

    Dawkins (LATER EXPLANATORY COMMENT): . . . When he asked me that question, something like, "Could you ever imagine any kind of intelligent design?" I bent over backwards to try to give intelligent design its best shot. Its best shot for me was, something like design by an alien intelligence, something like what Frances Crick and Leslie Orgell had proposed as Directed Panspermia. I don't believe in that, I didn't believe in that, I never said I did believe in that, but I was trying to bend over backwards to give intelligent design its best shot. I was actually being even more generous than that, because knowing at the time nothing about Ben Stein, and just trying to give my honest opinion, I recalled that Dembski, the leading theorist of intelligent design, at a time when he was trying to distance himself from creationism (they are, of course, all straight down the line Christian creationists), but nevertheless, it was at a time when for political reasons in American educational politics Dembski was anxious to distance intelligent design from Creationism. And he tried to help that distancing along by protesting that the Intelligent Designer doesn't have to be God, it could be an alien from outer space. Dembski said that! I actually remembered that when Ben Stein asked me that question, and I thought I was actually offering Dembski an olive branch, by acknowledging his admittedly disingenuous suggestion that the Intelligent Designer might not be God, but might be aliens from outer space.

    Dawkins: Well, it could come about in the following way:
    Dawkins: It could be that at some earlier time somewhere in the universe a civilization evolved by probably some kind of Darwinian means to a very, very high level of technology, and designed a form of life that they seeded onto perhaps this planet.
    Dawkins: Now that is a possibility and an intriguing possibility. And I suppose it's possible that you might find evidence for that if you look at the details of biochemistry and molecular biology you might find a signature of some sort of designer.
    Stein (VOICEOVER): Wait a second! Richard DAWKINS thought Intelligent Design might be a legitimate pursuit?!
    Dawkins: And that designer could well be a higher intelligence from elsewhere in the Universe. But that hight intelligence would itself have had to have come about by some explicable -- or ultimately explicable process.
    Dawkins: It couldn't have just jumped into existence spontaneously, that's the point.
    Stein (VOICEOVER): So Professor Dawkins was not against Intelligent Design, just certain types of designers, such as God.
    Stein: So the Hebrew god, the god of the Old Testament, he doesn't exist in your view?
    Dawkins: Certainly, that would be a very unpleasant prospect.
    Stein: And the holy trinity of the New Testament?
    Dawkins: Nothing like that.
    Stein: Do you believe in any of the Hindu gods? Like Vishnu...
    Dawkins: How can you ask such a question? How could I? Why would I, given that I don't believe in any others?
    Stein: You don't believe in the Muslim god?
    Dawkins: No. Why do you even need to ask?
    Stein: Well, I just wanted to be sure. So you don't believe in any god, anywhere?
    Dawkins: Any god, anywhere would be completely incompatible with anything that I've said.
    Stein: I just wanted to make sure: You don't believe in ANY god anywhere.
    Dawkins: No.
    Stein: What if after you died you ran into God, he said "What've you been doing, Richard?! I mean, what've you been doing? I've been trying to be nice to you, I gave you a mult-million dollar paycheck over and over again with your book and look what you did!"
    Dawkins: Bertrand Russell had that point put to him and he said something like "Sir, why did you take such pains to hide yourself?"
    END time 3:39

    Clearly, anyone with a shred of honesty and at least half a brain must accept that Arauna's Creationist-inspired summaries of the Dawkins-Stein conversation are flat-out lies.

    A more complete link:

      Hello guest!

    The "Expelled" movie:

      Hello guest!
    Dawkins segment starts 1:26:55.

  5. 5 hours ago, Arauna said:

      Hello guest!



    So gullible you are. A perfect illustration of confirmation bias combined with Dunning-Kruger ignorance.

  6. 4 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

    The above was a joke, which you obviously know nothing about.

    A joke is when you say something that a reasonable person will think is funny. Like this one (again with apologies to Colossus—the Forbin Project):

    Jokes have to make a certain amount of sense, or be something that is clearly tongue-in-cheek. What you said is not funny in any way. And it's not tongue-in-cheek because it's what you and your idiot girlfriend actually believe.


  7. 6 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

    I lost nothing. I asked my mathematician friend, “What are the chances of life originating spontaneously?”

    ”Greater than that of all the atoms in the known universe,” he said.

    This is among the most ignorant things you've managed to say: Not only is it incoherent language-wise, but you've got things ass-backwards as usual.

    The number of fundamental particles -- not atoms -- in the universe has been estimated at about 10^80. So according to what you would like to have said, the chances of life originating spontaneously are greater than one in 10^80. Exactly opposite of what you should have said.

    Probabilities are by definition numbers between 0 and 1 -- which you obviously know nothing about. What you apparently meant to say, but have not the mental wherewithal to understand, is that your imaginary friend told you that the said probability is less than one in 10^-80.

  8. 2 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

    Just because that idiot thinks his wisdom is displayed by categorizing arguments and reasonings doesn’t mean that I have to. I don’t even know what arguments are “young earth” and what are not, nor to I care.

    Nearly all Watchtower 'arguments' for creation and/or against evolution are from either Young-Earth Creationists or Old-Earth Creationists or the like. You don't realize it because the Watchtower plagiarizes and fails to give credit.

  9. 3 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

    I also have not yet made the comparison (for the sake of kindness, but kindness is utterly wasted of this fellow) that while he looks forward to his death, you and I awake looking forward to the day, in an atmosphere of overall joy. Maybe THAT is the ultimate assessment of what one’s beliefs do for a person.

    He really really REALLY should have stayed where he was. He would have a more pleasant personality if he had.

    LOL! Belief without evidence will certainly get you into The New World where you can pet your lion and tiger.

  10. 48 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

    Bart Ehrman, though I disagree with him on ever so many points, did contribute one gem for the ages: “If you know a Latin phrase and also a perfectly fine English phrase that means the same thing, you should always use the Latin so people will know that you are educated.

    You're nearly as ignorant as your girlfriend.

    "Post-priori" is a common phrase known to most non-Trumpists. Much like its counterpoint "a-priori". And as common as "et cetera".

    It means "after the fact".

    48 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

    You think that by attaching a learned label to something you can explain away nonsense? Here @Araunaand the mathematicians have you, and no wistful wand will wave it away.

    Ok, your after-the-fact 'calculation' of probabilities is invalid. Understand?

    Now see if you can answer my question: Can you figure out why such calculations are bogus?

    If you think they're valid, then by all means give us a link to a valid presentation of such calculations by your vaunted mathematicians. Summarize them to prove you understand them.

    Otherwise you're just blowing hot air out of your ass.

    If you can't do that, you lose.

  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Service Confirmation Terms of Use Privacy Policy Guidelines We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.