[Rachael Van Helsing]

Re: How Nobel Prize winners helped prove the big bang

Yeah, and a Star Trek geek could explain warp theory to me, but that wouldn't make it any more a reality.

Were you an ostrich in a past life Remy?
Because you sure spend a lot of time with your head buried in the sand. old

Many years, no GENERATIONS, of the a-rabs have lived in the hot and blindingly sunny desert. They haven't turned into negroidials. In fact, based on you illogical jibber jabber they should be getting darker than negroidials since your pseudo scientist claim everybody evolved from negroidials and the areas negroidials inhabit aren't as sunny as the desert.

They are not white either. If you look at the skin color of pure blooded desert-dwelling arabs it is hardly white.
Like I said before, DID YOU READ THE LINK I POSTED????

So now negroidials and aboreals are animals? You are by far the most racist woman I've ever encountered.

Do you spend at least 2 hours a day hitting your head with an anvil? Because it sure seems like that. Either that or you're high.
I was not TALKING about aboriginals or Africans I was talking about animals! Ie lions, tigers, that sort of thing!! I was saying that if THEY can figure out what to do why couldn't a human??

YOUR cave people ancestors. There is no neanderthal(i.e. aboreal) blood in my veins. YOUR grandpa is the exiled British criminal who raped neanderthals when his prison ship first arrived on the island of Australia.

I live here now. I'm originally from the US and my background is from Europe, so your suggestion is highly unlikely.
And like it or not, your ancestors were the same cave people as everyone else's!

Poor woman with your weak female brain. Considering that compared to their total body mass their brains are EXTREMELY tiny. A human brain comprises about 2% of the human body mass, while a whale's brain comprises only 0.02% of its body mass.

I knew about that. But you never mentioned it before, did you? You only mentioned brain SIZE.
And if you think other races aren't as smart as whites, then why is it that they often score so much better in standardized testing?

I only asked for one. Just one. I guess you caught yourself in a lie, sinner. There are no beautiful african americans of pure african ancestry.

Simply because I don't know any names. Doesn't mean they don't exist.

One of those black comedians? Well, I don't watch Comedy Central either.

I suggest you look him up. It may do you a world of good.

So a-rab and white citizens of Africa and white aussie citizens are not neanderthals(Ok, makes sense), but aboreals and negroidials aren't human? OK, I get it, lady. Your a stone cold bigot.

Aus aboriginals, Africans, Arabs, Asians and whites are ALL human!!
YOU are bigoted, and against your own race! You're a disgrace!

I bet your hero, Hitler, would write the same thing about the joos.

Hitler is your hero, not mine. I bet if he weren't catholic you'd want a monument put up for him!

No, YOU will be sorry for the doorway to Armageddon will have been opened.

Armageddon, shmarmaggedon. They've been spouting that nonsense for thousands of years. Do you know the book of revelations was actually referring to the time when Xtians were being persecuted by Romans. They use to refer to their enemies by numbers. 666 - Emperor Nero. 616 - Emperor Caligula.
And yet those years are long gone, aren't they?

[Rachael Van Helsing]

Re: How Nobel Prize winners helped prove the big bang

My word! For once, something Hellsinger says is actually Biblically supported!
Revelation 13:1 And I stood upon the sand of the sea, and saw a beast rise up out of the sea, having seven heads and ten horns, and upon his horns ten crowns, and upon his heads the name of blasphemy.

2 And the beast which I saw was like unto a leopard, and his feet were as the feet of a bear, and his mouth as the mouth of a lion: and the dragon gave him his power, and his seat, and great authority.
*snip* biblical blah blah blah
The scarlet coloured beast will be Hillary's Vice-President, obviously.

Umm, I hardly think HC is a 'many headed' beast, BT. old

[Brother Temperance]

Re: How Nobel Prize winners helped prove the big bang

Umm, I hardly think HC is a 'many headed' beast, BT. old

Read the Bible, and my post.

The scarlet coloured beast will be Hillary's Vice-President, obviously.

Hitlery is obviously Babylon the Great, the Mother of Harlots and Abominations of the Earth. This is practically self-evident.

[EPluribusUnum (On Moderation)]

Re: How Nobel Prize winners helped prove the big bang

Well Rachael, the good news is that according to these people,
Who are insane, by the way,
You don't have a soul. http://www.landoverbaptist.org/news0500/femsoul.html
Which means that you can't go to hell. Or at the very least you wouldn't be able to get into heaven anyway, so why bother?
However, you may note that there are some obvious contradictions coming from the mouths of these idiots.
Hmmmmmm. And I thought I'd seen a ton of posts talking about how you would "burn in hell".
Oh, and, by the way Rachael, thanks for being a voice of reason. In a crazy forum.

[Brother Temperance]

Re: How Nobel Prize winners helped prove the big bang

Well Rachael, the good news is that according to these people,
Who are insane, by the way,
You don't have a soul. http://www.landoverbaptist.org/news0500/femsoul.html
Which means that you can't go to hell. Or at the very least you wouldn't be able to get into heaven anyway, so why bother?
However, you may note that there are some obvious contradictions coming from the mouths of these idiots.
Hmmmmmm. And I thought I'd seen a ton of posts talking about how you would "burn in hell".
Oh, and, by the way Rachael, thanks for being a voice of reason. In a crazy forum.

Are you really so foolish as to think you can smuggle your Satanic slander past us? God is not mocked, you damnable Lenin-worshipping secularist!

[EPluribusUnum (On Moderation)]

Re: How Nobel Prize winners helped prove the big bang

Are you really so foolish as to think you can smuggle your Satanic slander past us? God is not mocked, you damnable Lenin-worshipping secularist!

Ooh, Lenin-worshipping. Wouldn't I worship Marx, were I a Communist, instead of Lenin? And who would care? It's just a form of government. A failed one, yes, but nothing more.

For anyone who didn't understand my last post, just highlight it.

God is not mocked? I should hope he isn't. In fact, my 'mockery' was directed at your own interpretations of the KJV. You think interpretation is bad? Well, breaking news: any time you read something, you interpret it. I especially like that you dismiss any arguments because you have some kind of belief that you can't be wrong. Hey, more news! That doesn't prove anything!

As Rachael has clearly pointed out, you can't argue science, or for that matter anything else without knowing anything about it. "But our religion says!" is not an answer. If you want to argue, use some evidence. There's a lot of religions out there, and none of them can be proven, so I'd hope that you don't think that some interpreted line in the KJV says this or that. I mean, sure, I'll follow the theological aspects, because there's no way to prove or disprove those in any way. But this is something where you take your interpretation and pass it off as evidence against a real, logical point. Logic can't fail. That's a fact.

And how about your contradictions? You hate, but say that you don't tolerate hate. You condemn women to hell, yet say that they can't go to hell or heaven. You are racists, yet you claim to have no toleration for racists.

And how about these beliefs? Sure... white, blond, blue-eyed, heavy tithing, male Republican Landoverans get into heaven. Everyone else just dies, or is doomed to hell. Right. Of course.

Well, let it be known that if you're right, if you have the exclusive tickets into heaven, and you people are the sort up there, I'll take hell.

[SalvationSeeker]

Re: How Nobel Prize winners helped prove the big bang

God is the only evidence we need, sinner.
He tells us what's right and what's wrong, and we follow.

Do you think you know better than God?!
You vain blasphemer!

You condemn women to hell, yet say that they can't go to hell or heaven

We never said they cannot go to hell.
We are still debating if they have souls, and if not having souls would prevent them from reaching Heaven or not.
Because there are other creatures in heaven who also lacks souls, like horses.

This is a big issue for Creation scientists, so leave it to us who are educated in the KJV1611, thank you very much.

But this is something where you take your interpretation and pass it off as evidence against a real, logical point. Logic can't fail. That's a fact.

We don't interpretate, that's something false christians do.
We simply follow the Bible, and reading it under the influence of the holy spirit.
Sickular logic can be false, because God doesn't need to follow it, He does as He pleases.
You think you can set the rules for HIS behaviour? What are you, retarded?

[EPluribusUnum (On Moderation)]

Re: How Nobel Prize winners helped prove the big bang

God is the only evidence we need, sinner.
He tells us what's right and what's wrong, and we follow.

Do you think you know better than God?!
You vain blasphemer!



We never said they cannot go to hell.
We are still debating if they have souls, and if not having souls would prevent them from reaching Heaven or not.
Because there are other creatures in heaven who also lacks souls, like horses.

This is a big issue for Creation scientists, so leave it to us who are educated in the KJV1611, thank you very much.



We don't interpretate, that's something false christians do.
We simply follow the Bible, and reading it under the influence of the holy spirit.
Sickular logic can be false, because God doesn't need to follow it, He does as He pleases.
You think you can set the rules for HIS behaviour? What are you, retarded?

Following the statement "God is the only evidence we need", I could say, for example, that "Allah is the only evidence Muslims need." You wouldn't like that very much, now would you?

No, I don't think I know better than God, as you would have seen had you read my post instead of taking snippets of it without understanding the whole meaning. Rather, I think I know better than your interpretation of the Bible, which brings me to my next point.

Referring to your statement about interpretation: "
We don't interpretate, that's something false christians do.
We simply follow the Bible, and reading it under the influence of the holy spirit."
You do interpret, as you'd know if you thought about the word "interpret" for a minute. Even when you read something such as "The oranges are round," you interpret it to mean that a particular set of oranges are, in fact, spherical in shape. Nothing new or complicated, but it's interpreted nonetheless. Some verses in the Bible have single, obvious interpretations. Others, such as the so-called "Curse of Ham" verse could be taken in many different ways. That verse, as an example, does not say anything such as "And they were black." You only interpret it to mean that. Sure, the name of one of Ham's sons, Cush, means black, but then it could be interpreted to mean something else entirely, and don't you think that it would have been written clearly, as opposed to hidden in a name? Let's not debate that, as this is a different, more general argument.

Ok, so women might have souls, or they might not, and they might be able to get to heaven, or they might not. You don't know yet? But I thought you guys were infallible! And hey, wait a minute. You're basing whatever conclusion you come to on... *gasp* a... *say it isn't so!* interpretation! If it isn't explicitly obvious in the KJV... then you are interpreting the meaning. If it is obvious, then, well, "What are you? Retarded?"

And finally, oooh, secular logic. Do I think I set the rules for God? No. I think God set some logical rules for this earth, which are fairly obvious, and provable. For example, the statement:
"All black pens have black ink.
Therefore, all black ink came from black pens." is easily disproven by logical rules. Thus logical rules are always correct.

What did you think when you read that? If you thought anything along the lines of "But that one example doesn't prove all examples", you used "secular logic". To be precise, this would be the statement:
"One logical statement is true. [could also be, "Sometimes, logical statements are true"]
Therefore, all logical statements are true."

You would have spotted, although you may not have though about it, a fallacy, in that sometimes =/= all. [=/= is "Does not equal"].

So you use, without even thinking about it, "secular logic" anytime you argue something. A self-contradiction is an example of a logical fallacy you may spot without even thinking about it.

Happy? I didn't think so. Perhaps you'll at least read this one, since you didn't seem to understand the last. What are you, illiterate?

[Pastor Al E Pistle]

Re: How Nobel Prize winners helped prove the big bang

Following the statement "God is the only evidence we need", I could say, for example, that "Allah is the only evidence Muslims need." You wouldn't like that very much, now would you?

Yes. Because it is exactly the excuse we need to nuke them back to 4,000BC when the earth was created.

No, I don't think I know better than God, (several paragraphs of drivel deleted)

What are you, illiterate?

Of course not. What you don't seem to realize is that since GOD makes the rules, GOD can and does CHANGE the rules periodically. As soon as you understand that simple fact, everything falls into place: We can't understand what GOD does. See?

[Remy Lebeau]

Re: How Nobel Prize winners helped prove the big bang

They are not white either. If you look at the skin color of pure blooded desert-dwelling arabs it is hardly white.

So tar skinned people who are so hideously dark because of the sun moved to a place where the sun is even harsher and got lighter? You still have not refuted this obvious contradiction to your illogical banter.

Like I said before, DID YOU READ THE LINK I POSTED????

Yeah, sure... whatever. It didn't help your case.

I was not TALKING about aboriginals or Africans I was talking about animals! Ie lions, tigers, that sort of thing!! I was saying that if THEY can figure out what to do why couldn't a human??

Nobody is saying that aboreals didn't have relations, you simply minded female. I said they didn't comprehend the relationship between sex and procreation. Sex was merely for pleasure. They never put two and two together to comprehend that sex was what caused pregnancy. Look it up!!! Get your head out of the clouds, woman!! You're dealing with your intellectual superior here and even your best efforts won't be enough. But at least try to keep up.

I live here now. I'm originally from the US and my background is from Europe, so your suggestion is highly unlikely.

Europe = eurotrash = wanton sexual depravity = criminal behavior = exile to Australia = relations with neanderthals = lower intelligence of offspring = atheism

Atheism + harlotry = Rachael Von Hellbound

As you can see it still applies to you.

And like it or not, your ancestors were the same cave people as everyone else's!

Are you slow or something? I have no arboreal blood in my veins.

I knew about that. But you never mentioned it before, did you? You only mentioned brain SIZE.

Can we stop making innuendos to my tallywhacker and get back to the issue at hand, harlot? As I've told you countless times before - I'M A HAPPILY MARRIED TRUE CHRISTIAN™ MAN!!!! Geeeesh!!!

And if you think other races aren't as smart as whites, then why is it that they often score so much better in standardized testing?

No, they don't. They give them 3 points for every one point a white would get in order to make it "fair" and they still get lower scores.

Simply because I don't know any names. Doesn't mean they don't exist.

Yes, it does. Thanks for showing everybody that all negroidials are hideous monsters that only a fat drunken white slave master would rape.

I suggest you look him up. It may do you a world of good.

I'd rather not look up some wild nigra. He might steal my hub caps or try and rape my wife.

YOU are bigoted, and against your own race! You're a disgrace!

We do not tolerate bigotry and hatred here, sinner.

What is this race that is my own? I'm a True Christian™ American, if that's what you mean. And I have nothing against my fellow True Christians™ no matter what country they currently live in.


Armageddon, shmarmaggedon. They've been spouting that nonsense for thousands of years. Do you know the book of revelations was actually referring to the time when Xtians were being persecuted by Romans. They use to refer to their enemies by numbers. 666 - Emperor Nero. 616 - Emperor Caligula.
And yet those years are long gone, aren't they?

Your nonsense secular non-reasoning is meaningless. You know as much about interpreting the Bible as you do about maintaining chastity. When I want an interpretation of an abortion manual I'll look to you, but as far as biblical knowledge is concerned I'm the master and you are the failing student.

[Brother Temperance]

Re: How Nobel Prize winners helped prove the big bang

And finally, oooh, secular logic. Do I think I set the rules for God? No. I think God set some logical rules for this earth, which are fairly obvious, and provable. For example, the statement:
"All black pens have black ink.
Therefore, all black ink came from black pens." is easily disproven by logical rules. Thus logical rules are always correct.

What did you think when you read that? If you thought anything along the lines of "But that one example doesn't prove all examples", you used "secular logic". To be precise, this would be the statement:
"One logical statement is true. [could also be, "Sometimes, logical statements are true"]
Therefore, all logical statements are true."

You would have spotted, although you may not have though about it, a fallacy, in that sometimes =/= all. [=/= is "Does not equal"].

So you use, without even thinking about it, "secular logic" anytime you argue something. A self-contradiction is an example of a logical fallacy you may spot without even thinking about it.

Happy? I didn't think so. Perhaps you'll at least read this one, since you didn't seem to understand the last. What are you, illiterate?

Now we're finally getting to have a proper reasoned debate. Logical rules are always correct, as long as they're GOD's logical rules! Humans are fallible, this you must admit, so sometimes we fail to understand the complexity of God's logic. For instance, think about this: Sometimes sometimes =/= all, sometimes sometimes = all, depending on what God says. Did you understand that? Good. If so, you should now be ready to begin on chapter 1 of Genesis. Go!

[SalvationSeeker]

Re: How Nobel Prize winners helped prove the big bang

Following the statement "God is the only evidence we need", I could say, for example, that "Allah is the only evidence Muslims need." You wouldn't like that very much, now would you?

The difference is that the quoran is false, and that Mohammed was a false prophet.

No, I don't think I know better than God, as you would have seen had you read my post instead of taking snippets of it without understanding the whole meaning. Rather, I think I know better than your interpretation of the Bible, which brings me to my next point.

So you have another "interpretation" than ours?
PRESENT IT.

Referring to your statement about interpretation: "
We don't interpretate, that's something false christians do.
We simply follow the Bible, and reading it under the influence of the holy spirit."
You do interpret, as you'd know if you thought about the word "interpret" for a minute.

NO, WE DON'T.

Even when you read something such as "The oranges are round," you interpret it to mean that a particular set of oranges are, in fact, spherical in shape. Nothing new or complicated, but it's interpreted nonetheless. Some verses in the Bible have single, obvious interpretations. Others, such as the so-called "Curse of Ham" verse could be taken in many different ways. NO.

That verse, as an example, does not say anything such as "And they were black."

Ham translates to 'darky'.

You only interpret it to mean that. Sure, the name of one of Ham's sons, Cush, means black, but then it could be interpreted to mean something else entirely, and don't you think that it would have been written clearly, as opposed to hidden in a name? Let's not debate that, as this is a different, more general argument.

NO, WE DON'T. THAT'S ONLY YOUR OPINION, JESUS DOESN'T AGREE WITH YOU, SO WE DON'T CARE WHAT YOU THINK.

Ok, so women might have souls, or they might not, and they might be able to get to heaven, or they might not. You don't know yet? But I thought you guys were infallible! And hey, wait a minute. You're basing whatever conclusion you come to on... *gasp* a... *say it isn't so!* interpretation! If it isn't explicitly obvious in the KJV... then you are interpreting the meaning. If it is obvious, then, well, "What are you? Retarded?"

Friend, the Bible doesn't tell us if they have souls or not.
That's why we have to make arguments based on Creation science if they have them or not.

If there is nothing to interpretate, then how could it be interpretated, you silly retard.

And finally, oooh, secular logic. Do I think I set the rules for God? No. I think God set some logical rules for this earth, which are fairly obvious, and provable. For example, the statement:
"All black pens have black ink.
Therefore, all black ink came from black pens." is easily disproven by logical rules. Thus logical rules are always correct.

The important word here being "you think", that's the problem!
You think too much, instead of putting your faith in Him.
That's why you haven't got a clue:

"Trust in the LORD with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding.
In all thy ways acknowledge him, and he shall direct thy paths."
Proverbs 3:5-6

Btw God could make all pens with black ink turn black if He wanted, and only allow black ink to come from black pens, as everything is possible with HIM. He doesn't need to follow YOUR rules. Rules are for mortals, not Jesus. He does as He pleases.

What did you think when you read that? If you thought anything along the lines of "But that one example doesn't prove all examples", you used "secular logic". To be precise, this would be the statement:
"One logical statement is true. [could also be, "Sometimes, logical statements are true"]
Therefore, all logical statements are true."

I THOUGHT YOU WERE RETARDED (WHICH YOU ARE) THAT'S WHAT.

You would have spotted, although you may not have though about it, a fallacy, in that sometimes =/= all. [=/= is "Does not equal"].

So you use, without even thinking about it, "secular logic" anytime you argue something. A self-contradiction is an example of a logical fallacy you may spot without even thinking about it.

YEA, SO STOP CONTRADICTING YOURSELF.

Happy? I didn't think so. Perhaps you'll at least read this one, since you didn't seem to understand the last. What are you, illiterate?

Blah blah blah..
Don't you ever get tired of reading your own dravel?
Jesus isn't impressed.

[One of the Anti-Landover Geeks]

Re: How Nobel Prize winners helped prove the big bang

We simply go along with God's decisions. If God sends you into eternal damnation to gulp scalding hot sulfur some day (soon), we would jump for joy. Who in their right mind would ever oppose GOD!?

You really are a bubble head, aren't you....

Who in their right mind would ever oppose god... Well, perhaps anyone who has the sense enough to ask for proof rather follow something on blind faith.

[SalvationSeeker]

Re: How Nobel Prize winners helped prove the big bang

Who in their right mind would ever oppose god... Well, perhaps anyone who has the sense enough to ask for proof rather follow something on blind faith.

How much proof would one need, stupid?
This here should be enough for any SANE person.

1.
God created man.
Man exists.
Therefore, God exists.

2.
The Bible (KJV1611) was dictated by God.
The Bible (KJV1611) exists.
Therefore, God exists.

3.
God says that those who disbelieve are given in to strong delusion.
You are given in to strong delusion.
Therefore, God is right, you are wrong, and God exists.

4.
Jesus lived as a man, then (temporarily) died and was ressurected.
Jesus is God.
Therefore, God exists.

5.
God created the earth.
The earth exists.
Therfore, God exists.

6.
God says that He is the one that sends evil. (Amos 3:6)
Evil exists.
Therfore, God exists.

7.
Heaven and Hell exists.
God created them.
Therfore, God exists.

[whalescales]

Re: How Nobel Prize winners helped prove the big bang

How much proof would one need, stupid?
This here should be enough for any SANE person.

1.
God created man.
Man exists.
Therefore, God exists.

2.
The Bible (KJV1611) was dictated by God.
The Bible (KJV1611) exists.
Therefore, God exists.

3.
God says that those who disbelieve are given in to strong delusion.
You are given in to strong delusion.
Therefore, God is right, you are wrong, and God exists.

4.
Jesus lived as a man, then (temporarily) died and was ressurected.
Jesus is God.
Therefore, God exists.

5.
God created the earth.
The earth exists.
Therfore, God exists.

6.
God says that He is the one that sends evil. (Amos 3:6)
Evil exists.
Therfore, God exists.

7.
Heaven and Hell exists.
God created them.
Therfore, God exists.

8.
Man creates god
religion is profitable
Man gets rich.