Drivelling Avocado, I was speaking about you, not to you.
If I ever do want to talk to you or if for some reason I want your whiny opinion on anything then I'll be sure to put a heading up like "Attention Yellow-Bellied Coward" or something to that effect. Okay?
Clear?
Good, now shove off and find someone who cares about your self-righteous snivelling. There's a good chap . . .
It is so enjoyable putting you in your place Rooinek.
It is also pathetically easy
You used to challenge other posters all the time, but sadly, it looks like old age has taken it's toll.
If you are looking for sympathy, check in the dictionary........ you will find it between Rooinek and Syphilis
10 000 yeas old???
Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahahahahahahahaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!!!!
This planet is billions of years old. Different forms of life have come and gone over time ... including the dinosaur. We at times dig bits of evidence up of this planet's vast history ... proving that different forms of life inhabited it at one time or another ... many moons before us.
Mankind's been scratching his head ever since, coming up with various theories ... trying to explain it all ... like the big bang theory, Darwism and his evolution ... or an alien race leaving some form of life behind or been ship wrecked leaving a crew or three stranded to procreate ... right up to this planet and everything else that exists being created by a devine being. .
We have a shit load of different religions spread across the planet. From ancestoral worship, to demon or satanic worship, to idolatry and onward to various fragmented christians cults.
Problem is that Beeno has read some of this, decided upon one of them and swallowed not only the hook, the line and sinker but the whole friggin fishing boat. He trusts in man's stupid theories and regards them as fact. How foolish. If it's printed it must be true. It seems he doesn't even know that the bible today is vastly different to the one 100 years ago. That's it's been tampered with.
As soon as he can't come up with an explanation he fabricates some nonsense. So much for being a holy joe!!
Personally, I believe in a creator and his creation. Personal experience has lead me down this path. Call me a nutter if you will. Or even a fool as your heading states. I believe in a heaven and a hell ... in angels and in demons and in life beyond the grave.
Can I prove any of it. No I can't.
No one can. I'm not even going to try.
All I can really say about Him is that we're all in for the high jump. Beano included and that He's been looking forward to this day ... big time..
Devil's Advocate, its way to easy..Just give Rooi enough rope and he will do the rest..
Say Rooi..Has your wife found a man or is she still trialling many men out? Really feel for her..
Rooitwit I did post a lot of material but just like the lennox material I posted i got no answers from you at all. The pattern is consistent.
I never said i thought the aerth was 10,000 years old but posted evidence suggesting the aearth might be younger than thought . I did say i had no idea how old the earth was. I have now also shown you the bible in genesis chapter 1 versus 1 to 3 leaves the questrion open - something you have never grasped.
Now please rooitwit dont go throwing your toys out of the kott again just because you cant refute Lennox!! You are over 50 and need to try and act at least on a level of maturity of an adooescent. Bwahahahahhahahahaha
Come on you atheists arwe so bright but here youare getting your butt soundly kicked. Lennox has smashed hawking's stupid explanation. Why not try and redeem the situation. Why becasue you cant - just admit it.
Hawking himslef cannot possibly this dumb so why the blunders. Becuae to the atheist there is no more gastly thought than to realise there is a God.So any old lie will do. No measure is too desparate - hence Hawking making these absurd statement - the univesrse will and must create itself via gravity. Any theory no matter how daft will be put forth.
Best Hawking follows the example of former leading world atheist Flew:
From: Associated Press, "Famous Atheist Now Believes in God", ABC News, 9 December 2004; (URL: http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=315976):
A British philosophy professor who has been a leading champion of atheism for more than a half-century has changed his mind. He now believes in God more or less based on scientific evidence, and says so on a video released Thursday.
At age 81, after decades of insisting belief is a mistake, Antony Flew has concluded that some sort of intelligence or first cause must have created the universe. A super-intelligence is the only good explanation for the origin of life and the complexity of nature, Flew said in a telephone interview from England. Flew said he's best labeled a deist like Thomas Jefferson, whose God was not actively involved in people's lives... "[God] could be a person in the sense of a being that has intelligence and a purpose, I suppose." Flew first made his mark with the 1950 article "Theology and Falsification"... Over the years, Flew proclaimed the lack of evidence for God while teaching at Oxford, Aberdeen, Keele, and Reading universities in Britain, in visits to numerous U.S. and Canadian campuses and in books, articles, lectures and debates.
There was no one moment of change but a gradual conclusion over recent months for Flew... Yet biologists' investigation of DNA "has shown, by the almost unbelievable complexity of the arrangements which are needed to produce (life), that intelligence must have been involved," Flew says in the new video, "Has Science Discovered God?"... The first hint of Flew's turn was a letter to the August-September issue of Britain's Philosophy Now magazine. "It has become inordinately difficult even to begin to think about constructing a naturalistic theory of the evolution of that first reproducing organism," he wrote... Flew's "name and stature are big. Whenever you hear people talk about atheists, Flew always comes up,"
Time to wise up rooitwit.
Hawking was right on one fact though. The univesrse is not eternal - there was a time when there was nothing.
Consider the following:
Answer: The Bible makes it clear that the universe is not eternal, that it had a beginning, and that the beginning was its creation by God (Genesis 1:1). This truth has been denied by philosophers and pseudo-scientists who have come up with a variety of different theories in an effort to “prove” the eternality of the universe. Further, atheists will say that matter and energy are eternal, following the first law of thermodynamics—“Energy can be transformed (changed from one form to another), but it can neither be created nor destroyed.”
Philosophically, why do we have something rather than nothing at all? If the universe had a beginning, then it must have a cause, and therefore cannot be eternal. And every drop of evidence we have points to the universe having a beginning, but this truth is not something welcomed by naturalists and atheists. Numerous scientifically minded atheists have expressed a desire to find a loophole to the scientific fact that the present order of nature had a beginning. Unfortunately for them, such a loophole does not exist. Here are five proofs that the universe is not eternal:
(1) The universe is running down, and something that is running down must have started at some point. The second law of thermodynamics states that the universe is running out of usable energy and if you doubt this, look in the mirror (you’re aging and running down just like everything else).
(2) The universe is expanding. This was confirmed through the Hubble telescope many years ago, and it is interesting to note that the universe is expanding from a single point, meaning the entire universe could be contracted back into a single point. Also, note that the universe is not expanding into space, but space itself is expanding.
(3) The radiation echo was discovered by Bell Labs scientists in 1965. What is it? It is the heat afterglow from the Big Bang. Its discovery dealt a death blow to any theory of the universe being in a steady state because it shows instead that the universe exploded.
(4) Galaxy Seeds. Scientists believe that, if the Big Bang is true (first, there was nothing, then, BANG, something came into being), then temperature “ripples” should exist in space, and it would be these ripples that enabled matter to collect into galaxies. To discover whether these ripples exist, the Cosmic Background Explorer – COBE – was launched in 1989 to find them, with the findings being released in 1992. What COBE found was perfect/precise ripples that, sure enough, enable galaxies to form. So critical and spectacular was this finding that the NASA lead for COBE, said, “If you’re religious, it’s like looking at God.”
(5) Albert Einstein’s theory of relativity means that the universe had a beginning and was not eternal as he had previously believed (Einstein was originally a pantheist). His theory proved that the universe is not a cause, but instead one big effect—something brought it into existence. Einstein disliked his end result so much that he introduced a “fudge factor” into his theory that allowed for an eternal universe. But there was only one problem. His fudge factor required a division by zero in his calculations—a mathematical error any good math student knows not to make. When discovered by other mathematicians, Einstein admitted his error calling it “the greatest blunder of my life.” After his acknowledgment, and upon confirming further research that showed the universe expanding just as his theory of relativity predicted, Einstein bowed to the fact that the universe is not eternal and said that he wanted “to know how God created the world.”
Further, it should be understood that every effect must resemble its cause. This is because, simply put, you cannot give what you do not have, so it is impossible for an effect to possess something its originating cause did not have. That being the case, how can one believe that an impersonal, amoral, purposeless, and meaningless universe accidentally created beings that are full of personality, morals, meaning, and purpose? Only mind can create mind. In the end it is either matter before mind or mind before matter, and all scientific, philosophical, and reasonable evidence points to the latter.
In conclusion, we find that all scientific evidence points to the fact that the universe had a beginning, just as the Bible states, and that a Cause must exist that resembles all we know today. As Lord Kelvin, a British scientist once said, "If you study science deep enough and long enough, it will force you to believe in God."
Admittedly, the most comfortable position for the evolutionist is the idea that the Universe is eternal, because it avoids the problem of a beginning or ending and thus the need for any “first cause” such as a Creator. In fact, it was to avoid just such a problem that evolutionists Thomas Gold, Hermann Bondi, and Sir Fred Hoyle developed the Steady State Theory. Information had come to light which indicated that the Universe was expanding. Dr. Hoyle suggested that the best way to try to explain both an expanding and eternal Universe was to suggest that at points in space called “irtrons” hydrogen was coming into existence from nothing. As hydrogen atoms arrived, they had to “go” somewhere, and as they did, they displaced matter already in existence, causing the Universe to expand. Hoyle believed that the atoms of gaseous hydrogen gradually condensed into clouds of virgin matter. He then suggested that within these clouds new stars and galaxies formed. And so on. (Hilarious stuff!!)
In his book, Until the Sun Dies, astronomer Jastrow noted: “The proposal for the creation of matter out of nothing possesses a strong appeal to the scientist, since it permits him to contemplate a Universe without beginning and without end” (1977, p. 32). Even after evidence began to appear that showed the Steady State theory to be incorrect, Jastrow suggested that “some astronomers still favored it because the notion of a world with a beginning and an end made them feel so uncomfortable” (p. 33). In God and the Astronomers, Dr. Jastrow explained why attempts to prove an eternal Universe failed. “Now three lines of evidence—the motions of the galaxies, the laws of thermodynamics, and the life story of the stars—pointed to one conclusion; all indicated that the Universe had a beginning” (1978, p. 111). Jastrow—who is considered by many to be one of the greatest science writers of our time—certainly is no creationist. But as a scientist who is an astrophysicist, he has written often on the inescapable conclusion that the Universe had a beginning. Consider, for example, these statements from his pen:
Now both theory and observation pointed to an expanding Universe and a beginning in time.... About thirty years ago science solved the mystery of the birth and death of stars, and acquired new evidence that the Universe had a beginning (1978, pp. 47,105).
Arthur Eddington, the most distinguished British astronomer of his day, wrote, “If our views are right, somewhere between the beginning of time and the present day we must place the winding up of the universe.” When that occurred, and Who or what wound up the Universe, were questions that bemused theologians, physicists and astronomers, particularly in the 1920’s and 1930’s (1978, pp. 48-49).
Most remarkable of all is the fact that in science, as in the Bible, the World begins with an act of creation. That view has not always been held by scientists. Only as a result of the most recent discoveries can we say with a fair degree of confidence that the world has not existed forever; that it began abruptly, without apparent cause, in a blinding event that defies scientific explanation (1977, p. 19).
The conclusion to be drawn from the scientific data was inescapable, as Dr. Jastrow himself admitted when he wrote: “The lingering decline predicted by astronomers for the end of the world differs from the explosive conditions they have calculated for its birth, but the impact is the same: modern science denies an eternal existence to the Universe, either in the past or in the future” (1977, p. 30, emp. added). In her book, The Fire in the Equations, award-winning science writer Kitty Ferguson wrote in agreement.
Our late twentieth-century picture of the universe is dramatically different from the picture our forebears had at the beginning of the century. Today it’s common knowledge that all the individual stars we see with the naked eye are only the stars of our home galaxy, the Milky Way, and that the Milky Way is only one among many billions of galaxies. It’s also common knowledge that the universe isn’t eternal but had a beginning ten to twenty billion years ago, and that it is expanding (1994, p. 89, emp. added).
The evidence clearly indicates that the Universe had a beginning. The Second Law of thermodynamics, as Dr. Jastrow has indicated, shows this to be true. Henry Morris correctly commented: “The Second Law requires the universe to have had a beginning” (1974, p. 26). Indeed, it does. The Universe is not eternal.
SO IF ITS NOT ETERNAL HOW DID IT COME INTO BEING AND WHY IS THERE STUPENDOUS EVIDENCE OF INCREDIBLE INTELLIGENCE IN ITS DESIGN?
Over then to the down and out atheists.
I see another bleat from CC and no reply to the origins of the univesr from the dumbfounded rooitwit who belongs to that intelligent lot of oaks who are atheists. Seems the intellectual challegene is to much eh! Bwahahhahahahaha
No oaks rather accept Flew, Einstein and the boys were forced to admit the truth because of the EVIDENCE. Science has buried atheism and the last rites are being served. Time for atheists to raise the white flag
One cant even imaginge what they will try next - there is no where to go!
They say that one should never argue with a fool
Cause he'll drag you down to his level and then beat you with his experience.
Beano ... you are unfortunately very confused. The truth of it all has passed you by.
Your supposed attempt at converting us to you gobbledigook is sadly lacking.
But hey ... if reading all these theories does it for you then by all means ... knock yourself out.
Smallcock: "PS..Love the amount of comments your posts generate Rooi..Its a sign of how loved you are. With any luck, a few of your followers might see me write here and up your comment responses for a change but dont hold your breath...or in fact, do hold your breath..Hold it for 3 hours! No cheating now!"
Smallcock, stop fantasizing about my wife . . . trust me on this one, she's far too much woman for an awkward and gawky little adolescent loser like you . . . and rather tell me, does your quote above make you feel a bit foolish? Just a little bit? Hmmmm?
Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
I disagree Beeno
Nothing can be made from nothing, not even the universe. If nothing was made from a big bang, what created the material for the big bang to begin with, and what created that.... and what created that..... etc etc.
Nothing can never have always been there, something, somewhere, somehow, sometime happened. Your limited intelligence, as well as mine, will never ever fathom this out.... ever.
Calling Atheists stupid is ignorant, because just as much as they can't prove there is no god, you can't conclusively prove there is, and therein lies your ignorance. It's astounding sometimes how christians will beat the same drum over and over and over, yet cannot prove one simple single shred of proof that there is a god.
I say christians beating the drum here because all atheists say the same thing, there is no god, and the problem here, is that there is no conclusive proof to prove atheists otherwise, so how can they be called liars, idiots, morons? If you could 100% prove them all wrong just in this thread alone, you would be a worldwide hero, but you can't and never will. You are relying on some rewritten text which has countless and countless contradictions in it. Has there ever been physical, tangible proof that there is a god?, if there is, please advise.
You are the one required to prove your case here, not the atheist. You have made a bold claim, and you cannot back that up by quoting someone else. In a court of law you would come to a decision based on the balance of probabilities, and even in your case, you cannot prove a thing, and neither can the atheist, but to call them stupid, dumb or hopeless, shows you are one very narrow minded individual, but by all means put some proof forward and I will be the first one to retract my statement.
Physical - Tangible proof though Beeno, not quotes or essays or even scientific studies. Scientific studies are challenged and changed all the time, Science has never proven there is a god, and it never will prove there isn't a god either.
CleanCut , I will share Gym tips with you if you like. I have some interesting prgrammes im working on.
as for religion, Everyman for himself, Rooinek may have a laugh at the expense of some, and i am convinced that religious zealots or fans turn ther nose up a those of us that dont follow. If one man is allowed to knock on my door and wave a book in my face, then it should be the right of non believer to wave our opinion in theirs.
but maybe not in a sporting arena. dont fancy being feed to the lions.
Buzz, be very careful in giving training advice to a geriatric such as Clean Cut..If his heart gives up do to over excersion, you may be held accountable. Lets focus on cardio for him..
I know geriatrics that could run circles around some of todays slob youth. So i am always one who prefers to proceed with caution when calling someone out on a forum. For all i know you could be a three foot tall midget. But if you are a three foot tall midget with some interesting training techniques im all ears. :-)
On the work out programmes, to shut you guys up here's what I do (when I am not recovering from hernia surgery - which I am doing right now,lol).
Incidently, I am 60+ so if you are younger; or older (which I doubt :) ) you should adjust the programs accordingly. This program is pretty tame when I see what others are doing but it suits me just fine.
Monday: 30 minutes aerobics - treadmill, eliptical machine, etc. Get HR over 160 several times but vary pace down to 120 and up again).
Weigths (chest and core):
1. Incline bench bench press with dumbells 16-20 kgs sets of: 12,10, 10
2. Flat bench press with dumbells 16-20 kgs 12, 10, 10
3. Pulldowns neutral hold 45-55 kgs 12 reps x 4
4. Pull downs front. 34, 40, 45 kgs 12 reps for each
5. Push ups between benches 12x3
6. Wood chopper 15 kgs 12x3
7. Ab crunches 3 x 30
8. stretch and other ab work 15 minutes as part of cool down
Tuesday: kick boxing aerobics 1 our followed by 45 minute class for strengtening core and abs (mainly men in the class but also some real babes that keep us men doing more than we should to impress them :)Science says that men exercise 20% harder (so to speak) when there is a woman present).
Wednesday: 30 minutes aerobics
weights: tris and bis
Thursday: Boot camp class followed by core and abs class
Friday (recovery)
Saturday
30 minuets aerobic warm up followed by weight lifting class
Sunday
30 Minutes aerobic warm-up
weights:back
Overall the goal is to burn about 5,000 calories per week so the aerobics parts of my workout are adjusted accordingly.
Once one of you guys gives your programs I will give details of the other weight lifting workouts but I am not going to waste my time typing if you can't be bothered.
Com'on Boklogic, you go first :)
Just_win , i am currently alternating weeks, lets call it week a and week b. Week A is predominantly crossfit, this past week has been heavily focused on Ton ups, 100 reps of each exercise (opften broken up in series - aka circuits ). Dead Lifts, Box Jumps, Wall Balls, alternate press ups, squat thrusts, squat jumps. then week B we look at more longer distance training, runs, swims etc. I havent focused on any raw weight training as i dont believe sheer muscle mass we give me longevity.
I doubt if Smallcock will reply but knowing him as I do, here's my guess at his daily "programme":
5 minutes searching for microscopic penis
10 minutes jerking off
1 minute getting a smack from Mummy for being a naughty boy
30 minutes crying
2 hours venting anger on rugby message board
10 minutes running to Mommy in tears because Rooinek is being ugly to him
1 hour Cartoon Network
Beddy Byes!
Buzz: sounds good to me!
Your program makes sense, i.e. trainers say you have to have variation, i.e. keep shocking the body. So the ton ups using different exercises gives the variation. The week A and B could do this also.
My goals are different so although I change my routines (excpet the classes) the emphasis is on calorie conusumption and overall body fitness without getting injured so I can't stress/shock the body too much because my recovery time is longer (age).
Not so positive about Rooinek's suggested workout routine though, lol
Pretty close Rooi. Very similar to your routine is it?? Im guessing something like:
1 second reaching down to where his dick should be (30 years+ experience)
5 hours trying to get the old fella to budge a bit and stand (no luck)
3x interruptions from mom who is serving food to her little prince
All this super setted with an online blog where you keep refreshing in hope that a man less than half your age has called you out so you can vent your frustration at life which has by this time passed you by.
2 hours shouting and swearing at God because he didn't make you more of a man and "ruined your sad little life"
8 hours of sleep with your childhood friend "Mr Teddy"
