The Universe can be 6 days old
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
23-01-2016, 07:08 AM (This post was last modified: 23-01-2016 07:15 AM by EvolutionKills.)
RE: The Universe can be 6 days old
(23-01-2016 05:28 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  A null hypothesis is a statistical hypothesis that is tested for possible rejection under the assumption that it is true (usually that observations are the result of chance).


Great, you can copy-paste from Wikipedia, too bad that doesn't necessarily mean you understand any of it.

Actually, check that, you in fact copy-pasted that blurb from Wolfram MathWorld, and without attribution to boot! How very scholarly of you!

A null hypothesis is a statistical hypothesis that is tested for possible rejection under the assumption that it is true (usually that observations are the result of chance). The concept was introduced by R. A. Fisher.

http://mathworld.wolfram.com/NullHypothesis.html

Simply copying and pasting the definition does not confer understanding of it. Not that you've show any amount of understanding of anything else until now either, so it's par for the course I suppose.



(23-01-2016 05:28 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  The Null Hypothesis is not being made on my end.


Facepalm

Remember that whole 'fundamental lack of understanding' bit I was talking about? Thanks for showing I was right in the very next sentence.



(23-01-2016 05:28 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  You are claiming the universe is a minimum of 13 billion years from an objective Frame of Reference (regardless of how we as humans see it)
You have only provided evidence for your claim from a Human Frame of Reference.


I'm sorry, what? I made no such claim, nor do I have to. Don't you know how fucking skepticism actually works, you fucking fraud?

I am skeptical of your claims, based entirely upon your complete lack of evidence in support of your position. I need not prove the alternative or present evidence to counter your complete lack of evidence. Your position is not assumed to be correct until proven otherwise, rather your assertion is assumed to be false unless you can demonstrate otherwise. You'd already know that if you knew anything at all about the topics you are so poorly attempting to spout off on, you fucking charlatan.



(23-01-2016 05:28 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  Your hypothesis is not supported by your evidence because you have made the assumption of a Human Reference Frame being an Objective Reference frame.


I don't need to make a counter claim to dismiss a claim made without evidence.

You are making a claim, it is incumbent upon you to provide evidence for it. You have utterly failed to do so, and are now instead floundering in a feeble attempt to shift your burden of proof onto everyone else. Too bad for you, we actually know how these things work, and your infantile word games have no power here.



(23-01-2016 05:28 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  In my claim I am using the Frame of Reference of the Catalyst of Creation to prove that the human Frame of Reference is not the only frame of reference there is & is therefore not necessarily an objective Frame of Reference.


Great, prove it!

Assertions are not evidence.



(23-01-2016 05:28 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  You are committing the Null Hypothesis here:
The common understanding is that the universe was created in a minimum of 13 billion years.


An understanding built by the foremost experts in their respective fields and supported by the best available evidence we currently have, repeatedly checked and tested against to further refine the estimate and narrow the error bars of our predictions and models.

This has nothing to do with your complete lack of evidence for your claims.



(23-01-2016 05:28 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  It is based on a research that calibrates age from the average Human Reference Frame.


So you're assuming that in all of astrophysics, nobody until you has thought to apply special relativity to the age of the universe?

Alright, prove it!



(23-01-2016 05:28 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  I question the validity of the claim that the earth is a minimum of 13 billion years on the grounds that:


Wow, you stupid fuck... Facepalm

Earth is estimated to be 4.543 billion years old, while the universe at large is estimated to be 13.82 billion years. Can't even be bothered to keep your terms straight?



(23-01-2016 05:28 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  An average human reference frame is invalid in this particular story because the being said to have made the claim is reportedly not a human.

Therefore anything making a claim to the age of anything must make that claim from from it's own reference frame.


Great, prove it!

That's your job you lazy shit.



(23-01-2016 05:28 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  If you do not accept the reference frame of the reported claimant as an objective one then why should I accept a human frame of reference as an objective one also?


If you make a claim, you saddle yourself with the burden of proof. You're not merely here questioning the overwhelming scientific consensus, you're making an a prioi claim based upon a literal interpretation of a ancient book of mythology, whereupon you are assuming it's conclusion and trying to work backwards from there. For the moment here we'll ignore how such lazy armchair reasoning is entirely ignorant of the history, cultural anthropology, and other context that said works were edited, borrowed to and from, and otherwise created in the ancient near east. We wouldn't want to burden your already quite strained intellect with a digression on the polytheistic pagan origins of western monotheism.

That's not science, that's called confirmation bias you fucking ignorant troglodyte.



(23-01-2016 05:28 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  If time dilation was not an accepted scientific fact then my argument has no basis & I would yield the debate in favor of your claim.


There's a world of difference between a phenomenon existing, and it being evidence for your assertions.

You haven't connected the dots, done the math, collected the evidence, and had it vetted and double checked by relevant experts in the field. You have utterly failed to meet your burden of proof.

Thus your claims can be dismissed as the vapid bullshit that they are.



(23-01-2016 05:28 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  You said "claims made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence"

I am not claiming that the universe was created in 6 days.
I am claiming that I can be created in 6 days.
You & mostly everyone here is of the assumption that it was created in a minimum of 13 billion years from an objective frame of reference.


You haven't provided evidence for any of your claims. If you're interested in Just Asking Questions, you can go JAQ-off somewhere else.



(23-01-2016 05:28 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  I have given evidence that the age varies dependent on frame of reference.


Great, prove it!



(23-01-2016 05:28 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  I have also shown that you are using a Human Reference Frame on the assumption that it is an objective frame of reference.


Nope. I'm dismissing your claim purely on the basis of you failing to meet your burden of proof. If you understood anything at all about the scientific method, the evaluation of evidence, the null hypothesis, or even the very basic tenants of skepticism, you'd already know that. But you don't, because you're an ignorant fraud.



(23-01-2016 05:28 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  It stands to reason that because of Time Dilation the universe's age can vary based on Reference Frames.


Great, prove it!

Armchair reasoning doesn't cut it in the field of astrophysics, you stupid shit. Do the math, gather the evidence, do the fucking work!



(23-01-2016 05:28 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  Therefore the universe can be younger than 13 billion years old.


Great, prove it!


Make with the fucking work already.



(23-01-2016 05:28 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  There is no claim here that the universe is 6 days old.
If you assume this is what you are arguing against then you have not accepted the challenge & I ask that you leave the debate if you are unwilling to argue the topic of discussion.

Once again, this isn't a debate, it's a three ring circus; and you're the bear on a fucking unicycle in the middle of it all that's think's it's a person because it's wearing a vest and a jaunty hat.

We're not laughing with you, we're laughing at you! You sad, strange little man. Now would you kindly fuck off?

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like EvolutionKills's post
23-01-2016, 07:14 AM
RE: The Universe can be 6 days old
(23-01-2016 06:44 AM)ClydeLee Wrote:  
(23-01-2016 06:11 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  The claim is that "the universe can be created in 6 days" and not:
"the universe was created in 6 days"
If anyone here is debating the latter & do not wish to discuss the topic up for debate then I ask that you leave the Colloseum on the grounds that you do not wish to debate the topic.
Let me know what you decide before we proceed any further.
Thanks.

So you respond more to a post I made multiple posts ago opposed to the current one? Your still leaving loose holes in your established claim. What is "the universe" is it our universe as it is now? Our universe though the 6 days may of been the creation but thousands of years have been able to follow onward after that initial 6 days? You continually fail to make a clarified specific argument.

It's worth investigating when other arguments are provided what you think of them. Because you're talking about an argument that I don't see anyone making in your contrast to your argument. That the earth was 13 billion years old.

I deny the validity of your argument, I don't not think I know if you can know anything, I mean ANYthing, you state. Nor do I think you can know that.

It was specified that the 6th day ends when the catalyst made the claim that the universe was created in 6 days to the reporter of the claim.
I do not know who or when the reporter existed and therefore I do not argue the age of the report in my claim, only the age of the universe up until the time of the claim.

A persons ability or academic prowess is not a determining factor in proving or disproving a claim.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-01-2016, 07:22 AM (This post was last modified: 23-01-2016 07:34 AM by Chas.)
RE: The Universe can be 6 days old
(22-01-2016 09:58 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  
(22-01-2016 09:10 PM)Chas Wrote:  How is matter stretched? What does that even mean? It is certainly not scientific.
You fail again.


Non-responsive. I said nothing about that.


Nothing is lost. It is certainly not scientific since matter/energy cannot be destoyed.
You fail again.


Except it is not empty; that is not the way the universe expands.
You fail again.


Meaningless, contradictory, non-scientific drivel.
You fail again.


The 'skin' is not the bubble. Define 'skin'.
You fail again.


Show the proof. You are failing.
Chas. You never see the sarcasm until its too late.
The parts where I wrote (I will help you), are actually arguments that will help prove me wrong.
That's why I keep saying I will help you and posting stuff that is the opposite of what I'm saying.

You actually condemn the arguments that would have helped you prove me wrong.

Really shocked you didn't even see that though. Still thanks for the assist any way.

Also when are you all going to start posting evidence to get me to shut up though?

I'm kinda getting bored of pasting this:

I'm getting tired of your drivel. What I condemn is your nonsense. Drinking Beverage

You have made a claim and wave vaguely at "all the laws of science" as evidence.
That's not how it works. You must support your claim with actual evidence or it can be dismissed.

We are dismissing your claim due to lack of evidence. Drinking Beverage

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-01-2016, 07:34 AM
RE: The Universe can be 6 days old
(23-01-2016 07:08 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  
(23-01-2016 05:28 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  A null hypothesis is a statistical hypothesis that is tested for possible rejection under the assumption that it is true (usually that observations are the result of chance).


Great, you can copy-paste from Wikipedia, too bad that doesn't necessarily mean you understand any of it.

Actually, check that, you in fact copy-pasted that blurb from Wolfram MathWorld, and without attribution to boot! How very scholarly of you!

A null hypothesis is a statistical hypothesis that is tested for possible rejection under the assumption that it is true (usually that observations are the result of chance). The concept was introduced by R. A. Fisher.

http://mathworld.wolfram.com/NullHypothesis.html

Simply copying and pasting the definition does not confer understanding of it. Not that you've show any amount of understanding of anything else until now either, so it's par for the course I suppose.



(23-01-2016 05:28 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  The Null Hypothesis is not being made on my end.


Facepalm

Remember that whole 'fundamental lack of understanding' bit I was talking about? Thanks for showing I was right in the very next sentence.



(23-01-2016 05:28 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  You are claiming the universe is a minimum of 13 billion years from an objective Frame of Reference (regardless of how we as humans see it)
You have only provided evidence for your claim from a Human Frame of Reference.


I'm sorry, what? I made no such claim, nor do I have to. Don't you know how fucking skepticism actually works, you fucking fraud?

I am skeptical of your claims, based entirely upon your complete lack of evidence in support of your position. I need not prove the alternative or present evidence to counter your complete lack of evidence. Your position is not assumed to be correct until proven otherwise, rather your assertion is assumed to be false unless you can demonstrate otherwise. You'd already know that if you knew anything at all about the topics you are so poorly attempting to spout off on, you fucking charlatan.



(23-01-2016 05:28 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  Your hypothesis is not supported by your evidence because you have made the assumption of a Human Reference Frame being an Objective Reference frame.


I don't need to make a counter claim to dismiss a claim made without evidence.

You are making a claim, it is incumbent upon you to provide evidence for it. You have utterly failed to do so, and are now instead floundering in a feeble attempt to shift your burden of proof onto everyone else. Too bad for you, we actually know how these things work, and your infantile word games have no power here.



(23-01-2016 05:28 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  In my claim I am using the Frame of Reference of the Catalyst of Creation to prove that the human Frame of Reference is not the only frame of reference there is & is therefore not necessarily an objective Frame of Reference.


Great, prove it!

Assertions are not evidence.



(23-01-2016 05:28 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  You are committing the Null Hypothesis here:
The common understanding is that the universe was created in a minimum of 13 billion years.


An understanding built by the foremost experts in their respective fields and supported by the best available evidence we currently have, repeatedly checked and tested against to further refine the estimate and narrow the error bars of our predictions and models.

This has nothing to do with your complete lack of evidence for your claims.



(23-01-2016 05:28 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  It is based on a research that calibrates age from the average Human Reference Frame.


So you're assuming that in all of astrophysics, nobody until you has thought to apply special relativity to the age of the universe?

Alright, prove it!



(23-01-2016 05:28 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  I question the validity of the claim that the earth is a minimum of 13 billion years on the grounds that:


Wow, you stupid fuck... Facepalm

Earth is estimated to be 4.543 billion years old, while the universe at large is estimated to be 13.82 billion years. Can't even be bothered to keep your terms straight?



(23-01-2016 05:28 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  An average human reference frame is invalid in this particular story because the being said to have made the claim is reportedly not a human.

Therefore anything making a claim to the age of anything must make that claim from from it's own reference frame.


Great, prove it!

That's your job you lazy shit.



(23-01-2016 05:28 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  If you do not accept the reference frame of the reported claimant as an objective one then why should I accept a human frame of reference as an objective one also?


If you make a claim, you saddle yourself with the burden of proof. You're not merely here questioning the overwhelming scientific consensus, you're making an a prioi claim based upon a literal interpretation of a ancient book of mythology, whereupon you are assuming it's conclusion and trying to work backwards from there. For the moment here we'll ignore how such lazy armchair reasoning is entirely ignorant of the history, cultural anthropology, and other context that said works were edited, borrowed to and from, and otherwise created in the ancient near east. We wouldn't want to burden your already quite strained intellect with a digression on the polytheistic pagan origins of western monotheism.

That's not science, that's called confirmation bias you fucking ignorant troglodyte.



(23-01-2016 05:28 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  If time dilation was not an accepted scientific fact then my argument has no basis & I would yield the debate in favor of your claim.


There's a world of difference between a phenomenon existing, and it being evidence for your assertions.

You haven't connected the dots, done the math, collected the evidence, and had it vetted and double checked by relevant experts in the field. You have utterly failed to meet your burden of proof.

Thus your claims can be dismissed as the vapid bullshit that they are.



(23-01-2016 05:28 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  You said "claims made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence"

I am not claiming that the universe was created in 6 days.
I am claiming that I can be created in 6 days.
You & mostly everyone here is of the assumption that it was created in a minimum of 13 billion years from an objective frame of reference.


You haven't provided evidence for any of your claims. If you're interested in Just Asking Questions, you can go JAQ-off somewhere else.



(23-01-2016 05:28 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  I have given evidence that the age varies dependent on frame of reference.


Great, prove it!



(23-01-2016 05:28 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  I have also shown that you are using a Human Reference Frame on the assumption that it is an objective frame of reference.


Nope. I'm dismissing your claim purely on the basis of you failing to meet your burden of proof. If you understood anything at all about the scientific method, the evaluation of evidence, the null hypothesis, or even the very basic tenants of skepticism, you'd already know that. But you don't, because you're an ignorant fraud.



(23-01-2016 05:28 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  It stands to reason that because of Time Dilation the universe's age can vary based on Reference Frames.


Great, prove it!

Armchair reasoning doesn't cut it in the field of astrophysics, you stupid shit. Do the math, gather the evidence, do the fucking work!



(23-01-2016 05:28 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  Therefore the universe can be younger than 13 billion years old.


Great, prove it!


Make with the fucking work already.



(23-01-2016 05:28 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  There is no claim here that the universe is 6 days old.
If you assume this is what you are arguing against then you have not accepted the challenge & I ask that you leave the debate if you are unwilling to argue the topic of discussion.

Once again, this isn't a debate, it's a three ring circus; and you're the bear on a fucking unicycle in the middle of it all that's think's it's a person because it's wearing a vest and a jaunty hat.

We're not laughing with you, we're laughing at you! You sad, strange little man. Now would you kindly fuck off?
Prove what?
You want me to prove that the Universe is not less than 13 billion years from an objective Frame of Reference?
That is not the topic up for debate.
The topic of debate is "Can the universe be 6 days old?". In proving this we would inadvertently prove that it is not necessarily over 13 billion years old.

My argument is that age is determined by Frame of Reference & speed based on scientific evidence.
Do you deny this is scientifically proven?
Do you deny it is relevant to the topic?

If you do not deny these claims I consider the debate settled between us.
We would have reached a position of uncertainty as to the exact age of the universe.
The debate is basically certainty vs uncertainty.
You argue on behalf of certainty & I don't.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-01-2016, 07:53 AM
RE: The Universe can be 6 days old
(23-01-2016 07:34 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  Prove what?


Your as of yet empty assertions.



(23-01-2016 07:34 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  You want me to prove that the Universe is not less than 13 billion years from an objective Frame of Reference?


Provide evidence to back up your assertions, whatever they might be.



(23-01-2016 07:34 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  That is not the topic up for debate.


That's great, because there is no debate here. There is you spewing fourth unfounded bullshit, then expecting everyone else to prove you wrong. You're an idiot, what's more, you're entirely unaware of just how out of your depth you are.



(23-01-2016 07:34 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  The topic of debate is "Can the universe be 6 days old?". In proving this we would inadvertently prove that it is not necessarily over 13 billion years old.


Possibility is not the same as probability, you stupid fuck.



(23-01-2016 07:34 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  My argument is that age is determined by Frame of Reference & speed based on scientific evidence.


Great, prove it!


(23-01-2016 07:34 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  Do you deny this is scientifically proven?
Do you deny it is relevant to the topic?


Besides the point. You are making the assertions, it's incumbent upon you to provide evidence for them.



(23-01-2016 07:34 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  If you do not deny these claims I consider the debate settled between us.


Once again, you getting the shit kicked out of you in a verbal mosh pit is not a debate. But it's almost cute that you still think it is.

Almost.



(23-01-2016 07:34 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  We would have reached a position of uncertainty as to the exact age of the universe.


Great, prove it!

If you want to challenge the overwhelming consensus of thousands upon thousands of trained professionals backed by a mountain of empirical evidence, which is what you need to do if you're going to argue against the currently accepted best estimates we have, then have at it jackass.

And just like your middle school algebra homework, don't forget to show your work! But until then, fuck off.



(23-01-2016 07:34 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  The debate is basically certainty vs uncertainty.


Great, prove it!


See above. If you want to challenge the professional consensus, have at it. But your armchair, hobby-grade, scrawled inside a public bathroom stall, level of work isn't going to cut it here.



(23-01-2016 07:34 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  You argue on behalf of certainty & I don't.


Wrong again jackass. You've failed to provide evidence to support your assertions, and thus I am entirely unconvinced as to the validity of your claims. End of story, you ignorant twat.

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like EvolutionKills's post
23-01-2016, 08:07 AM
RE: The Universe can be 6 days old
(23-01-2016 06:18 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  
(23-01-2016 04:48 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Fucking retard. Changing the subject as usual. YOU said "matter stretches", and cannot say how, or why, or anyone else who agrees with that nonsense. You idiot bubble was long ago destroyed by Paleophyte. Discussing your "bubble" is not what was asked of you. YOU said matter stretches. Tell us what that means.
I rebutted Paleophyte on the grounds that the evidence he provided is not proven by science and is therefore inadmissible in the current debate.
The very website he posted states that their theory is an assumption.
To date he has not denied my objection.

How has he destroyed the debate?
Why are you being this dishonest?

You are out of touch with reality.
You have convinced NO ONE of ANYTHING.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
23-01-2016, 08:13 AM
RE: The Universe can be 6 days old
(22-01-2016 11:39 PM)Paleophyte Wrote:  OK Shane, as Aliza stated this free-for-all has turned into a snarl that's a mess to read. There's no coherent train of thought here. Thus:

To a polite one-on-one discussion in the very menacing sounding "Boxing Ring". Kindly accept and we'll be able to discuss this in a tidier, more linear fashion. I've put the initial post in and have asked you for some starting conditions for your expanding bubble universe that will be handy for discussion.

See you there.

Somehow Shane has managed to miss my post again. In spite of the large, bold font employed to help ensure that he wouldn't accidentally overlook it. Perhaps I should have made it flashing.

Shane - You have a challenge in the Boxing Ring to discuss this topic one-on-one with me. Here's a link to it, though it ought to be difficult to miss what with your username in the title of the thread. Kindly accept or decline. Ignoring it is simply rude and one of the hallmarks of a manifestly dishonest troll.

---
Flesh and blood of a dead star, slain in the apocalypse of supernova, resurrected by four billion years of continuous autocatalytic reaction and crowned with the emergent property of sentience in the dream that the universe might one day understand itself.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Paleophyte's post
23-01-2016, 08:17 AM
RE: The Universe can be 6 days old
(23-01-2016 08:07 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(23-01-2016 06:18 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  I rebutted Paleophyte on the grounds that the evidence he provided is not proven by science and is therefore inadmissible in the current debate.
The very website he posted states that their theory is an assumption.
To date he has not denied my objection.

How has he destroyed the debate?
Why are you being this dishonest?

You are out of touch with reality.
You have convinced NO ONE of ANYTHING.

Maybe he thinks the universe could have been created in 6 days 13.8 billion years ago? Consider

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
23-01-2016, 08:40 AM
RE: The Universe can be 6 days old
(23-01-2016 08:13 AM)Paleophyte Wrote:  
(22-01-2016 11:39 PM)Paleophyte Wrote:  OK Shane, as Aliza stated this free-for-all has turned into a snarl that's a mess to read. There's no coherent train of thought here. Thus:

To a polite one-on-one discussion in the very menacing sounding "Boxing Ring". Kindly accept and we'll be able to discuss this in a tidier, more linear fashion. I've put the initial post in and have asked you for some starting conditions for your expanding bubble universe that will be handy for discussion.

See you there.

Somehow Shane has managed to miss my post again. In spite of the large, bold font employed to help ensure that he wouldn't accidentally overlook it. Perhaps I should have made it flashing.

Shane - You have a challenge in the Boxing Ring to discuss this topic one-on-one with me. Here's a link to it, though it ought to be difficult to miss what with your username in the title of the thread. Kindly accept or decline. Ignoring it is simply rude and one of the hallmarks of a manifestly dishonest troll.
Did not see your post. I would accept your challenge on the condition that you try to be a little more respectful.
Not seeing something is not the same as ignoring it.
Had I replied to the post without addressing your challenge you would be justified in pointing out any trollish behavior.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-01-2016, 09:14 AM
RE: The Universe can be 6 days old
I wonder what the chances are :
http://www.shanehayes.org/The-Believing-Agnostic.html

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: