Daily Bible Verse

[falcon9]

Your "blind" adherence to your view is entitled, since we have our freedom of choice.  

Adherence to reason isn't blind, like your religious faith.  One, logical reasoning isn't a faaith-based religion.  Two, you're attempting, (and failing), to use logic to discount logic.  That's illogical and your attempt fails on that basis.

I know that scientists are working diligently on the "God Particle," or Higgs boson, which has yet to be grounded in truth and proof.  Even if it is found to be the answer, are you saying you would agree that it just appeared out of nowhere, then everything just burst forth, and evolved into what we are today?  

I've previously posted regarding Higgs-boson prior to your 'discovery' of the concept and in regards to emergent theories.  You can either look up those posts in the archives or, wait around until they're reposted.

[lhz123]

How wonderful are the good things you keep for those who honor you! Everyone knows how good you are, how securely you protect those who trust you. — Psalm 31:19 (GNT)

[falcon9]

— Psalm 31:19 (GNT)

[jcribb16]

That is a totally messed up view you have.

That's your specious opinion; it has no valid basis in evidence so, it's empty.  On the other hand, your religious views are also based on a complet lack of valid evidence and are based upon blind faith.  Must be a cosmic coincidence.

Sending your "specious opinion" right back at you...  It's not specious or empty just because you say so - so keep your specious opinion unless you can provide something substantial in rebuttal.

[jcribb16]

Even a child's empty repetition of a reasoned rebuttal would be a void as yours.  That means you have no rebuttal and have conceded the argument, whether you deny it or not.

Empty, empty, empty.  Just as yours is, too.  You can't have it both ways, athei.

Your little "same ole, same ole's" are empty, too.  You have apparently decided to concede the argument, since you don't have substantial and total 100 percent proof of your view.  Like I said already, it's two-sided in here, not one-sided, as much as you would prefer it to be.  I've conceded nothing - you just deny any offered forth and that is your choice.  You haven't offered any, though...

[jcribb16]

Your "blind" adherence to your view is entitled, since we have our freedom of choice.  

Adherence to reason isn't blind, like your religious faith.  One, logical reasoning isn't a faaith-based religion.  Two, you're attempting, (and failing), to use logic to discount logic.  That's illogical and your attempt fails on that basis.

I know that scientists are working diligently on the "God Particle," or Higgs boson, which has yet to be grounded in truth and proof.  Even if it is found to be the answer, are you saying you would agree that it just appeared out of nowhere, then everything just burst forth, and evolved into what we are today?  

I've previously posted regarding Higgs-boson prior to your 'discovery' of the concept and in regards to emergent theories.  You can either look up those posts in the archives or, wait around until they're reposted.

I was just including it in my comments, since we have already discussed this before; also making a point that the particle has still not been given 100 percent viability for the total answer.  I'm adding to it that if it is proven, it didn't just appear in the first place - it had to have a master of intelligence to have come up with it in the first place. 

[falcon9]

That is a totally messed up view you have.

That's your specious opinion; it has no valid basis in evidence so, it's empty.  On the other hand, your religious views are also based on a complet lack of valid evidence and are based upon blind faith.  Must be a cosmic coincidence.

Sending your "specious opinion" right back at you...  It's not specious or empty just because you say so ...

That's correct, (in regards to you sending/posting another specious opinion), and incorrect in that a specious opinion is empty when it is not supported by facts, (as yours was not).  The determination that both of your opinions are specious in not, itself, a specious opinion since it is based upon logical reasoning, (something you are manifestly unfamilar with).

[jcribb16]

How wonderful are the good things you keep for those who honor you! Everyone knows how good you are, how securely you protect those who trust you. — Psalm 31:19 (GNT)

You always post just the right verse - I am enjoying your sharing these verses.  

[falcon9]

I was just including it in my comments, since we have already discussed this before; also making a point that the particle has still not been given 100 percent viability for the total answer.  I'm adding to it that if it is proven, it didn't just appear in the first place - it had to have a master of intelligence to have come up with it in the first place.  

That's an invalid presumption since it not only has no evidence to support it, ("it had to have a master of intelligence to have come up with it in the first place"), but excludes emergent theories with prejudice.  If such a Higg-boson particle is detected, that does not constitute evidence that
some "master of intelligence" had to "come up with it in the first place" because emergent theories would also account for Higgs-boson particles.  
Now, if you were to wonder where any pre-existent properties "came from" in order for Higgs-boson to emerge, you might be unfamilar with the cyclic universe theories which require no 'first principle'/creator 'g-d'.  There's no specific requirement for a 'creator' in such an instance and that's what is unacceptable to one holding religious blind faith in one.

[falcon9]

Your little "same ole, same ole's" are empty, too.

No, they'd be empty only if not supported by logical reasoning or evidence and since they are, your empty opinion, (having no substantive reasoning or evidence to support it), is invalidated by that.

You have apparently decided to concede the argument ...

That is an incorrect assumption, which you seem fond of making.

... since you don't have substantial and total 100 percent proof of your view.

I'm already aware of your unfamilarity with logical reasoning and expected no less than that sort of illogical assertion on your part.

[jcribb16]

That is a totally messed up view you have.

That's your specious opinion; it has no valid basis in evidence so, it's empty.  On the other hand, your religious views are also based on a complet lack of valid evidence and are based upon blind faith.  Must be a cosmic coincidence.

Sending your "specious opinion" right back at you...  It's not specious or empty just because you say so ...

That's correct, (in regards to you sending/posting another specious opinion), and incorrect in that a specious opinion is empty when it is not supported by facts, (as yours was not).  The determination that both of your opinions are specious in not, itself, a specious opinion since it is based upon logical reasoning, (something you are manifestly unfamilar with).

You just think too highly of yourself with your use of your big words - they are getting tediously repetitive and rapidly becoming a cause of ennui or petty annoyance, not to mention being uncongenial.  Might you have some more new and better ones stashed away?

[falcon9]

It's nice to see a faith-blinded fundie try to increase her vocabulary and doubtless someone "using big words" inspired such, though she'd be unlikely to admit it.

Might you have some more new and better ones stashed away?

[jcribb16]

I was just including it in my comments, since we have already discussed this before; also making a point that the particle has still not been given 100 percent viability for the total answer.  I'm adding to it that if it is proven, it didn't just appear in the first place - it had to have a master of intelligence to have come up with it in the first place.  

That's an invalid presumption since it not only has no evidence to support it, ("it had to have a master of intelligence to have come up with it in the first place"), but excludes emergent theories with prejudice.  If such a Higg-boson particle is detected, that does not constitute evidence that
some "master of intelligence" had to "come up with it in the first place" because emergent theories would also account for Higgs-boson particles.  
Now, if you were to wonder where any pre-existent properties "came from" in order for Higgs-boson to emerge, you might be unfamilar with the cyclic universe theories which require no 'first principle'/creator 'g-d'.  There's no specific requirement for a 'creator' in such an instance and that's what is unacceptable to one holding religious blind faith in one.

It's certainly not unacceptable to believers.  There may or may not be a specific requirement for a "creator" - you have no evidence to 100 percent back that up.  At least you can admit to the fact that "emergent theories" are just that - theories - not 100 percent proven at this point.

[2getherwewin]

Finally, brothers and sisters, whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things.
– Philippians 4:8 (NIV)

[jcribb16]

It's nice to see a faith-blinded fundie try to increase her vocabulary and doubtless someone "using big words" inspired such, though she'd be unlikely to admit it.

Might you have some more new and better ones stashed away?

Once again, you still give yourself too much credit.  I am a teacher - English is one of my strongest subjects.  I have also taught English (including "big words" of spelling and vocabulary) and already have my own stash of words.  I figure you just need a little challenge of your words - you really have exhausted your current supply, and we would be a little less tediously bored, to see some new ones introduced into your conversation.