Prove God Exists and Win $10,000.00!

Ok Dixie, here is some more scientific info for you to digest.

Your claim that the moon causes the seasons is wrong. The wobble in the earth's rotation is not what causes the seasons. The Chandler Wobble (discovered Seth Carlo Chandler in the late 1800s) is a very minor and does not have any effect on most of the world (unless you are an astronomer).

The theories for the causes of the Chandler Wobble are varied. But I saw no mention of an impact with the moon being one of these theories.

The reason we have seasons is because of the 23.45 degree tilt of the planet's rotational axis. So your supposition that the moon causes the seasons was just as wrong as your idea that the tides enable all sea life to exist.

Here is a good website for your further education:

http://science.howstuffworks.com/question165.htm

http://www.howstuffworks.com/question442.htm

http://science.howstuffworks.com/evolution.htm
 
Prove God Exists and Win $10,000.00!


Dixie you've got a lot of nerve posting this thread title, after welching on two bets with other posters. Maineman on the 2006 election. And you promised to pay a thousand dollars, or something, to anyone who could show you that the golden rule was written in the bible. I think it was watermark that showed you, and you welched on him.
 
I am waiting for him to come back and tell us more about how he won this debate. lol
 
Solitary said:
I am waiting for him to come back and tell us more about how he won this debate. lol
Click to expand...

The thing is, he really thinks he's right, on all counts, and he votes.

To get a better perspective, read this entire thread, and enjoy:

http://fullpolitics.com/viewthread.php?tid=141#pid361851

Its a demonstration in fatheadedness to a degree never before known by man.

And tis just the beginning.

Subsequently, Dixie claimed that a ruler could not be divided into three equal parts of 4 inches, or that a mile could be divided into three equal parts of 1760 yards. He insisted there must be a discrepancy, because he doesn't understand the concept of equal thirds.

A little history for you. Plenty more where that came from.
 
Wow

That is stupidity on a truly amazing scale.



Thanks for clueing me in. Now I know another one not to waste time on.
 
Hey Dixie, you came back! You apprently ignored the last entries in this thread.

I know there was a good reason. But I thought I'd bring the topic up again.
 
Solitary, the human eye functions in a completely different way from a photosensitive patch found in prehistoric animals. The human eye depends on a lens, retina and cornea, working together like a camera, and the photosensitive eye works based on nerve responses from direct light. It is like saying a camera evolved from a motion sensor, they are two different things which function in completely different ways. The fact that some pinhead has conjectured how such an 'evolution' may have happened, is not scientific proof of anything. And even IF this were the case, it is unexplainable how a random unintelligent design would have ever known it needed to evolve and how. A photo-sensor eye was not just sitting there one day thinking, boy if I only had a lens, I could transform myself into a much more efficient eye...oops wait, I also need a pupil and cornea, as well as my retina, because one component can't work without another, so I will just evolve myself a lens first, even though there is no functional purpose of a lens without the other three parts, but when I get that outta the way, I will evolve myself a retina, even though it still is of no fundamental use by itself, I am intelligent enough to realize I need to evolve these parts one at a time so as to culminate in an actual functional human eye... It didn't happen that way, sorry.

Beefy, for the last time, I never said 1/3 doesn't exist, or anything nearly as absurd as you claim. You can go dig up all the posts, or start a new thread, and we can debate this for another 5000 posts, if that's what you want to do, it will not change facts. 1/3 is a division problem, it is one divided by three. Whenever you divide one by three, you have a remainder, always have and always will. Sorry, but this is basic math, and if you want to continue illustrating how ignorant of basic math you are, keep running your mouth. The subject of rulers was refuted because a ruler is a measuring unit, not a mathematical calculation.

It is just absolutely amazing to me, what kind of extremes pinheads will go to, to supposedly "refute" what I have said. Something so simple a third-grader can understand, yet supposed educated adults want to argue to the contrary and insist I am stupid. One can not be divided evenly by three, it always produces a remainder, a left over part that doesn't belong to any of the other three divided parts. You can divide that one left over part by three, and the same thing results again, you have a part left over which is not a part of the other three divided parts of the part. This continues through infinity, it is never resolved. So, while you can draw simplistic examples like a ruler or pie, it doesn't negate the fact there is a remaining part which can't ever be resolved. That is indisputable, although you've tried your best to dispute it.
 
Dixie said:
Beefy, for the last time, I never said 1/3 doesn't exist, or anything nearly as absurd as you claim. You can go dig up all the posts, or start a new thread, and we can debate this for another 5000 posts, if that's what you want to do, it will not change facts. 1/3 is a division problem, it is one divided by three. Whenever you divide one by three, you have a remainder, always have and always will. Sorry, but this is basic math, and if you want to continue illustrating how ignorant of basic math you are, keep running your mouth. The subject of rulers was refuted because a ruler is a measuring unit, not a mathematical calculation.
Click to expand...

And the remainder is truly irrelevant. Just because PI will always have a remainder doesn't make it a "division problem". Have you ever measured angles in radians, Dixie?

You know, in ternary systems, 1/3 actualy comes out as 1/10 and common fractions like 1/2 are repeating decimals. Does this mean that 1/2 doesn't exist?
 
And the remainder is truly irrelevant.
Click to expand...

And I never argued that the remainder was relevant, just that it does exist. In fact, in application, the remainder is often irrelevant, we build structures, send men to the moon, and divide pies into three parts all the time. It doesn't prevent us from using 1/3 or forming other calculations based on the assumption of equality, and often, without any regard whatsoever for the remainder. Yet, the remainder does exist, and it always will. That was my only point.
 
You know, in ternary systems, 1/3 actualy comes out as 1/10 and common fractions like 1/2 are repeating decimals. Does this mean that 1/2 doesn't exist?
Click to expand...

I never EVER stated that 1/3 doesn't "exist", moron!

Simple problem, no other base numbers, no stretching the facts, no argument of relevancy, just a simple little basic math problem, one divided by three. It produces a remainder, one which is never resolved. Without resolving the remainder, you can not define the result as being "evenly divided" because the remainder has not been resolved. It is clearly a part of the whole, so which divided part does it belong to? This can't be answered, and further division of the remaining part, results in the same quandary. You can certainly divide the remaining part into thirds, and the resulting remainder into thirds, until the remainder is no longer relevant to whatever you are doing, we do this all the time, but that isn't my argument. One will never divide evenly into thirds, it is impossible to do, it's basic math and a remainder is always the result. I've made no other argument other than this, and it is the absolute facts of the matter, why pinheads want to continue to debate it, is a mystery to me.
 
Dixie said:
Solitary, the human eye functions in a completely different way from a photosensitive patch found in prehistoric animals. The human eye depends on a lens, retina and cornea, working together like a camera, and the photosensitive eye works based on nerve responses from direct light. It is like saying a camera evolved from a motion sensor, they are two different things which function in completely different ways. The fact that some pinhead has conjectured how such an 'evolution' may have happened, is not scientific proof of anything. And even IF this were the case, it is unexplainable how a random unintelligent design would have ever known it needed to evolve and how. A photo-sensor eye was not just sitting there one day thinking, boy if I only had a lens, I could transform myself into a much more efficient eye...oops wait, I also need a pupil and cornea, as well as my retina, because one component can't work without another, so I will just evolve myself a lens first, even though there is no functional purpose of a lens without the other three parts, but when I get that outta the way, I will evolve myself a retina, even though it still is of no fundamental use by itself, I am intelligent enough to realize I need to evolve these parts one at a time so as to culminate in an actual functional human eye... It didn't happen that way, sorry.
Click to expand...


Yeah, just because you didn't read and comprehend what was said in either my posts or the links I posted, there must be something wrong with us. lol
 
Interesting point there God. Proving god exists and what god is responisble for are different points ?

Can we even get a real consensus among the real believers on what god is responsible for ?
Creation of life on earth ? Dixies stinky feet ? Child molestors ?

Accoring to rumors God even made the devil ?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top