AE BB DB Explorer


Action:
Author:
Search Terms (separate with commas, no spaces):


form_srcid: prong_hunter

form_srcid: prong_hunter

form_cmd: view_author

Your IP address is 23.20.25.122

View Author detected.

view author posts with search matches:

Retrieve source record and display it.

Your IP address is 23.20.25.122

form_author:

form_srcid: prong_hunter

q: SELECT AUTHOR, MEMBER_NAME, IP_ADDR, POST_DATE, TOPIC_ID, t1.FORUM_ID, POST, POST_ID, FORUM_VIEW_THREADS from ib_forum_posts AS t1 LEFT JOIN (ib_member_profiles AS t2, ib_forum_info AS t3) ON (t1.forum_id = t3.forum_id AND t1.author = t2.member_id) WHERE MEMBER_NAME like 'prong_hunter%' and forum_view_threads LIKE '*' ORDER BY POST_DATE ASC

DB_err:

DB_result: Resource id #6

Date: 2010/10/31 22:30:15, Link
Author: prong_hunter
IBIG said on Panda's Thumb, Sept. 4 2010:
"Many here state that logic is a convention or a construct of man, so now let me ask these two questions:"
"Is big bang a convention or construct of man?"
"Is evolution a convention or construct of man? "

"I knew when I asked the questions about logic, that those here would state that logic was a convention or construct of man, which is what I really wanted to hear. I gave you all many opportunities to state otherwise, but to no avail. Now that you have stated that logic is a convention and construct of man, you must admit that big bang and evolution are a convention of man."

"Logic is absolute and not a construct of man, because before man gave a name to the law of non-contradiction it still existed. "

"It did not need a system to define it for it to have existed, the law of non-contradiction is absolute."

"'I am a man, and I am not a man' is this logical? would there be a lie somewhere in that statement, yet if we used fuzzy logic it would be valid, because it would not be completely wrong, at least 50% of the statement is correct."

"God’s logic will always lead to the truth!"

And on Sept. 7:
"I’ve not finished with logic yet, just wait and see!!! Be prepared!!!"

Are you ready for some fun?

IBIG will teach you his "God's logic".

Date: 2010/11/01 06:06:34, Link
Author: prong_hunter
Well, he really showed them on Panda's Thumb. Here's what IBIG said Oct. 31st 2010:
"No you are wrong, All along I have not just questioned whether there are moral absolutes, but I have also questions whether there are absolutes of any kind. It was said that there were no absolutes, which I clearly demonstrated was absurd, because if that were true then you could not state that there are no absolutes. If one is to state that there are no absolutes, then one would be making an absolute statement that there are no absolutes. So, evidently here you all only think there is one form of absolute, and that is that there is no absolutes:)"

"Go back and read my previous posts, because I clearly demonstrated that there are mathematic absolutes, and there clearly are moral absolutes also, I answered that. You again like to twist the truth to agree with you naturalistic view that there are no absolutes, but that is irrational. You are irrational!"

How can any one argue against 'logic' like that?

Date: 2010/11/01 17:58:22, Link
Author: prong_hunter
The record on Panda's Thumb is very interesting.

IBIG claims he is well-versed in God's logic.

He said this, "Let me ask everyone here, do you believe in the law of cause and effect?", June 25th in the PT thread ICR Hits A Snag.

When confronted with the fact that there is no "Law of Cause and Effect" in science, he simply ignores it and goes on in his unwavering, unshakable certainty.

When shown the error in his use of the response "there are no Absolutes" to prove there are absolutes, and thus God exits (they have to come from somewhere, right?), he simply ignores all appeals to formal logic - he knows better, don't confuse him with the facts.

The fact is that he cannot comprehend genuine scientific or logical arguments.  He's like a Taliban.

I can't imagine arguing with a Taliban, except that it must be like arguing with IBIG.

I will close with a few more choice quotes from Sept. 6th:
"The point of my little exercise on logic, is to demonstrate that logic will not work unless all facts are absolutely true," 9-6-10 BW282

"Logic is correct thinking, and the purpose of using logic is to find the truth, ..." 9-6-10 BW282

”… it is illogical to attempt to apply logic to see if God exists …” 9-6-10 BW282     (Holy Cow! Is this good, or what?)

Date: 2010/11/02 11:43:11, Link
Author: prong_hunter
Quote (mplavcan @ Nov. 01 2010,19:25)
Whatever. He stands as a testimonial that there are people out there who are so calcified in their thinking that no evidence, no argument, no data, no documentation, not even written proof of their own illogic and hypocrisy, will convince them that they are wrong.

He stands for everything that was overcome by the Enlightenment.  

He stands for everything that is wrong with religion.  

He stands for everything that our Founding Fathers stopped cold when they mandated our Government favor no Religion.  (Isn't it funny, our Democracy isn't founded on Christian Principles of religion as the far-right revisionists insist, but upon the clear mandate of separation of Church and State.  The Fathers knew exactly what happens when theocrats take over government.)

He has never accepted one argument on Panda's Thumb. He has never been 'wrong'. He says he has never lied, even when shown documentation of such.

In short, IBIG stands for intolerance, intransigence, inflexibility and his brand of theocracy ("to Hell with all the rest").

That's why it's important to stand up to him.

Thanks for your efforts.

Date: 2010/11/03 06:12:00, Link
Author: prong_hunter
I think IBIG may have resurfaced, with an alternate personality, named 'faith4flippers' on PT under the thread with the photo of the pelican.

He's goading Stanton, and making references to DS's dolphin arguments.  Anyone know how to contact them?

IBIG's not one to declare victory as he has, and fade quietly into the night.

Date: 2010/11/03 18:34:44, Link
Author: prong_hunter
Matt Young answered on PT, when asked, "Do you have the ability to see if Flipper is another incarnation of IBelieveInGod?"

"Different e-mail address, different IP address, for whatever that is worth."

Thanks Matt.

Date: 2010/11/04 18:25:20, Link
Author: prong_hunter
Quote (mplavcan @ Nov. 03 2010,21:05)
Quote (MadPanda @ FCD,Nov. 03 2010,13:28)
Our special friend, the topic of this thread, has often brought to mind a painting I saw in Beijing.  It showed Confucius and a goose looking at each other--the philosopher had a weary expression of disdain on his face, and the bird looked as puzzled as any other goose.  Our guide explained that this was an illustration for a maxim that may be freely translated as 'not every student can be taught'.

The MadPanda, FCD

I have a colleague who worked in China and once showed a slide in a talk. It was a picture of a young woman kneeling and holding up a large silver platter behind a bull. Manure (BS) was streaming from the bull onto the platter. Pretty much sums up the average creationist.

Once, while working in India, I watched a bejeweled and coiffured local woman in a beautiful sari hurriedly place both her hands under the raised tail of a hunched water buffalo to catch the hot steaming manure issuing forth before it hit the ground!

She immediately slung her prize onto the low tin roof of her home where it would dry in the sun and be fuel for cooking tomorrow's meal.

It happened too fast for a photograph. Sorry I didn't get one. Still, it burned an indelible image in my mind that will last forever.

You gotta do what you gotta do to survive.

Date: 2010/11/04 18:34:00, Link
Author: prong_hunter
Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Nov. 04 2010,18:07)
Are there any square circles?:)

More importantly, are You a square circle?

(You said you were absolutely certain of your birthdate because you have a birth certificate. How does absolute certainty of some arbitrary fact prove God? Don't you see the difference? Don't you see how foolish equating absolute certainty with Absolutes is?)

Date: 2010/11/04 18:49:05, Link
Author: prong_hunter
The more I read on Panda's Bathroom Wall the more amazed I become. Look at this post from someone named Dave Luckett:

 
Quote
Alas, no special vocabulary - nothing Shakespearian - is required to describe Biggy. He’s far too ordinary.

Byers, the McGonagall of creationism, is frequently amusing. One can place bets about how often and with what violence he will shoot himself in the foot. FL’s towering hubris is awesome in a way, like finding Everest in the Ozarks, except that Everest is actually based on something. JAD, that walking bubble of ego, preens and prattles like a Little Miss World contestant. Even the rectal rhapodies of that bloke whose name I forget - you know the one, the poor lost soul who’s so deeply in the closet that he’s dropping off the far edge of the map of Narnia - can at least be said to be honestly, truly, howling-at-the-moon, pissing-on-the-floor, rolling-eyed, frothing-mouthed, barking insane.

Biggy, by contrast, is merely a pain. Not a grand, heroic, life-threatening pain. Not even a twinge, which has a certain acuity to it. No, he’s a dull, low-grade ache. His only unusual quality is his persistence.

Screwtape, that experienced devil, was right to tell his junior tempter nephew that there was no necessity to go for the great sins. The best road to Hell, said he, is the ordinary, the routine, the banal. And Biggy is certainly that. His logic-deafness, his invincible ignorance, his rampant Dunning-Kruger - they’re all so ordinary as to be dull as ditchwater.

But the joke is this: there is no Hell. There is only Biggy and those like him. Or is that a contradiction in terms?

Date: 2010/11/04 19:02:31, Link
Author: prong_hunter
Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Nov. 04 2010,18:45)
No, don't you see how foolish it is to state that there are no absolutes, when it is clear that there are absolutes?  Absolute Certainty?

You're loosing me.

When you say you are certain of your birthdate because you have a birth certificate, I can accept that 'fact' just as our Government accepts it for the purpose of a Social Security number or a driver's license.

But when you say you are Absolutely Certain of your birthdate because of your birth certificate I say, 'okay', but I know that mistakes in recording can and have been made.  Your birth certificate may have a mistake.  You may be Absolutely Certain of your birthdate but I am not.

So, are you saying, that because you are Absolutely Certain that means God must exist? But because I have doubts about the absolute correctness of your birth certificate your certainty has no meaning for me.  Your Certainty doesn't prove God exists to me.

Date: 2010/11/05 06:24:59, Link
Author: prong_hunter
When you said, "No, don't you see how foolish it is to state that there are no absolutes, when it is clear that there are absolutes?  Absolute Certainty? "

You've lost me.  Please help me understand what you are trying to say.

When you say you are certain of your birthdate because you have a birth certificate, I can accept that 'fact' just as our Government accepts it for the purpose of a Social Security number or a driver's license.

But when you say you are Absolutely Certain of your birthdate because of your birth certificate I say, 'okay', but I know that mistakes in recording can and have been made.  Your birth certificate may have a mistake.  You may be Absolutely Certain of your birthdate but I am not.

So, are you saying, that because you are Absolutely Certain that means God must exist? But I have doubts about the absolute correctness of your birth certificate so your certainty has no meaning for me.  Your Certainty may prove God exists to you but it does nothing for me.

I'm not Absolutely, absolutely certain of anything - not to that degree.  I can only say that something seems very certain, or highly probably.  I may use the word 'absolute' from time to time, but it is just hyperbole.

Is Newton's Law of Gravity an Absolute?

Date: 2010/11/05 11:02:33, Link
Author: prong_hunter
Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Nov. 05 2010,09:12)
You see evolutionists see little changes, and then make grand claims from the little changes. I know you will say evolution takes millions of years, but then you are bringing speculation back into the argument, and not real science, as it is impossible to observed what happened over a million years.

"You see evolutionists see little changes, and then make grand claims from the little changes."

Newton was a Creationist, was he not?  He invented Calculus, did he not?  He taught us that the Whole is the Sum of the Infinitesimally Small Parts, did he not?

Why don't you accept Creationist Newton's calculus?

"I know you will say evolution takes millions of years, but then you are bringing speculation back into the argument, and not real science, as it is impossible to observed what happened over a million years."

No, no, NO!  

I say evolution is happening NOW - everyday, all the time.  It's observable.  It's a fact.

It doesn't take millions of years as you state.

But it's been happening for millions of years (according to all the evidence of the Earth).


So, even though you are Absolutely Certain you were born on such and such a date, and thus convinced Absolutes therefore exit (proving God), why should I accept your Absolute Certainty when I am not certain about your 'facts'?

Is Newton's Law of Gravity an Absolute?

Please answer to help me understand.

Date: 2010/11/06 08:08:49, Link
Author: prong_hunter
Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Nov. 04 2010,18:45)
No, don't you see how foolish it is to state that there are no absolutes, when it is clear that there are absolutes?  Absolute Certainty?

You must be too busy to answer my questions to help me understand.  Oh well.

I had to go to Wikipedia for insight. I looked up "Absolute (philosophy)" and the second sentence said some people equate "Absolute" with "God".

So I guess that's what you're doing.

Except your attempt at logical proof is fatally flawed.

Your example of being Absolutely Certain of your birthdate may be all the evidence you need for God, but it convinces no one else. (If there's a typographical error on your birth certificate then which God does that prove?)

Your 'logic' trick - getting at least one Panda to say there are NO absolutes, and then turning that around to prove there ARE absolutes - is decidedly not a proof that absolutes exist.  I could go into great detail explaining it to you but you won't understand. You would ignore it just as you have ignored, apparently, every response to your 'non-sense' on Panda's Thumb.

In short, your 'logic' trick is simply asserting what you are trying to prove - that Absolutes exist apart from Man and therefore God must exist.

Did you learn it from Answers-in-Genesis? Have you read their "Arguments Creationists Should Not Use"? Better go back and read it again.

You said all the Pandas are irrational. Instead you have demonstrated You are the one who is irrational. (P.S. - That means "without Reason". All you have is your faith.)

Date: 2010/11/08 17:20:12, Link
Author: prong_hunter
I too would like to discuss 'flood geology' with IBIG but I fear it is impossible. He seems incapable of original thought. He only parrots what he's been fed and what he chooses to believe, blindly. He sees neither the consequences of his statements nor the illogic of his arguments, yet he calls himself a master of logic. He cannot reason.

He declares victory on the Bathroom Wall after clogging it to a standstill with his 'effluent', justifying his existence, and proving he is 'right'.

Date: 2010/11/10 11:31:10, Link
Author: prong_hunter
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 10 2010,08:59)
I declare victory.  Since IBIG hasn't answered any of our questions, then his religion is incapable of doing so and he's a poopy-head.

I submit that IBIG is the best evidence that god does not exist.  Who would knowingly have someone like IBIG supporting them?

The biggest problem is how to reach the dumb-as-bricks religious fundies that are in positions of power?

Congratulations.  I agree, you won.

Having read the last few pages of the Bathroom Wall I see that IBIG declared (and I paraphrase), "All you Pandas don't believe in Absolutes (like me), therefore you cannot say I am wrong.  Therefore you and your worldview are irrational, and I declare Victory."

Pathetic, mindless beetle.

What bothers me is the dumb-as-bricks religious fundies that are in positions of power really are smart as foxes.  They know exactly what they are doing.

Heaven help us. (Dont worry, it's just a cultural saying.)

Date: 2010/11/11 17:34:58, Link
Author: prong_hunter
Here's Ken Ham recent blogging about some evil secularist:

"Now when it comes to the origins issue, there are many chat rooms and forums that are set up for people to debate this topic. However, some secularists aren’t content with that, as they just want to attack and disrupt Christian ministries.

When we first started the www.IamNotAshamed.org website, over a few nights some secularists left thousands of messages—thousands. They were spamming our site to try to totally disrupt it. We had to ban them."



Think he mentioned the likes of IBIG?  Noooooooooooooo.

Hyprocrite - evil, wicked hypocrite.

Date: 2010/12/13 21:28:08, Link
Author: prong_hunter
I can't believe it either.

I think he's morphed into flipper, or Kris, or AMDG, or darwinism.dogbarf()

I don't know, but I think after 400 pages he just can't keep his mouth shut.

What do you think?

Date: 2010/12/22 14:37:50, Link
Author: prong_hunter
"Kris" is (and his other personalities are) posting for one reason only - to evoke emotional response from those who reply.  It's how he gets his jollies.

And from the looks of it he's very successful on PT.  He's laughing up his sleeve.  He doesn't care what the argument is about.  He just wants to see people get upset.

Date: 2010/12/22 17:02:15, Link
Author: prong_hunter
Quote (Robin @ Dec. 22 2010,14:42)
Yep. Note to self - DNFTT.

Yes, we should not feed the trolls.

But can we not mock and expose them?

Yes, we can, I say. We get to have our jollies too!

More power to you Robin, mrg, Stanton, harold, phantomreader42, MadPanda, Mike Elzinga, didymos, OgreMkV, Dave Luckett, Dave Lovell, Phhhht, and a host of others doing the yeoman's work of standing up for the truth. More power to you!

Date: 2011/01/04 18:04:00, Link
Author: prong_hunter
I.B.I.G. is back!  Thanks for coming to the forum named in your honor.

I've been spending way too much time reading the Bathroom Wall at Panda's Thumb. It's been tedious, but enlightening.

IBIB was the central focus of the BW in 2010.  After thousands of posts, what was IBIG's point?

I think he finally posted it recently on Panda's Thumb, but here it is for those of you who haven't read it.

IBelieveInGod said: "I believe the sole purpose of the scientific claim of Abiogenesis is to imply that there is no God. If one were not to believe in God, and wanted to promote such a view, then creating an unprovable, and unfalsifiable hypothesis that life came to be by natural causes without a Creator would be the way to go about it. Abiogenesis would be a great tool for evangelizing young minds away from believing in God, and turning them into Atheists. Implying God doesn’t exist with an unprovable, and unfalsifiable hypothesis should be prohibited from being taught in public school."

That's what he was trying to convince everyone of, for an entire year. Not interest in hearing counter arguments, he fights science because he feels it exists soley to deny his God. And his fight is holy and his cause is just.

Evidently there's a US patent for abiogenesis, the object of his wrath.

What does that do to your argument IBIG? The government handed out a patent for abiogenesis. It must be real. I guess you were wrong.

Date: 2011/01/04 20:01:24, Link
Author: prong_hunter
Quote (MadPanda @ FCD,Jan. 04 2011,18:51)
"And that, prong_hunter, is why I ended up prefacing so many responses to our learned associate with three rather pointed words."

"Go fuck yourself, you lying sack of shit!"

No wait, that's someone else (and it's 8 words).

Just what were your three words, I forgot?

Date: 2011/01/05 11:12:03, Link
Author: prong_hunter
Quote (Dale_Husband @ Jan. 05 2011,01:28)
   
Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Jan. 04 2011,16:15)
 
I do know that God exists...


No, you don't, so you just lied to everyone here. NO ONE knows that God exists.

Well, I don't mean to be contrary, but IBIG has responded to such posts before. (I've got to stop reading the BW at PT.)

In this forum IBIG said, "I've already done that on Panda's Thumb bathroom wall. You wouldn't believe it anyway, so it would be a wasted of my time to rehash all of that again. "

And to be fair, he has responded in this forum that he  witnessed a miraculous healing of his grandmother. You might not believe it was a real miracle. And I might not believe it. But to IBIG it was genuine.

I have to admit, if I had seen a seemingly genuine 'miraculous' cure, before my own eyes, I might start to wonder about 'things that cannot be seen.'

Furthermore, as I have learned from reading, IBIG claims the Holy Spirit within him. If I felt such a presence (and I do not), then maybe I would be as stubborn as IBIG.

Finally, IBIG has been convince that old Bible prophesies have truly been fulfilled.

This is how IBIG, for himself, 'knows' there is a God.

For those of us without such experiences, we are justified in saying, "there's no way you can 'know' that God exists."

IBIG's proofs will not hold-up in a scientific court of law. His personal experiences don't convince anyone else. Therefore he would like to change the definition of science to include the supernatural.

In a year's worth of arguing, no one at PT agreed with him. He convinced no one, declared victory, and left.

So I'm trying to be fair to IBIG.

I really want to know how that patent on abiogenesis affects his argument against abiogenesis.

What say ye, IBIG?

Date: 2011/01/05 18:57:45, Link
Author: prong_hunter
So Ogre, are you saying that if God knows everything about everything, then he know whether you will accept him or reject him?

And if you reject him, and he knows it, then you really didn't have a choice at all? It was predestined before the beginning of time that you would spend eternity in Hell?

So if God knows everything (omniscient is the word, I think), then there is no such thing as 'free will'.

And God is directly responsible for condeming so many souls to Hell.

That doesn't seem fair.

What do you say, IBIG?

Date: 2011/01/06 18:13:44, Link
Author: prong_hunter
IBIG!

You said, "Okay let’s see you create non-living matter from nothing, and then let’s see you create life from that non-living matter, and then I will talk with you:):):) If it is so easy for life to have come about from non-living matter without the intervention of a Creator, then it should be so much easier for science to CREATE life in a lab:):):) And I’m supposed to be delusional?"

How come the US government has granted a patent for ABIOGENESIS?

So talk to me. I've just shown you what you said can't be done.

Date: 2011/01/07 17:25:20, Link
Author: prong_hunter
Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Jan. 07 2011,07:12)
     
Quote (prong_hunter @ Jan. 06 2011,18:13)
IBIG!

You said, "Okay let’s see you create non-living matter from nothing, and then let’s see you create life from that non-living matter, and then I will talk with you:):):) If it is so easy for life to have come about from non-living matter without the intervention of a Creator, then it should be so much easier for science to CREATE life in a lab:):):) And I’m supposed to be delusional?"

How come the US government has granted a patent for ABIOGENESIS?

So talk to me. I've just shown you what you said can't be done.

I've never found where the US Government actually granted such a patent for abiogenesis, but even if it were true, why do you think it somehow proves abiogenesis actually occurred?

Abiogenesis isn't just improbable, I believe it is impossible!

Dear IBIG,

Thank you very much for your response.

You need to look harder. The USPTO maintains a website. Find it and search on "creation of primordial life". That's abiogenesis, no?

It is true. It does exits. Go and read it.

Why would the US government, your government, grant a patent for something "impossible", as you say?

The USPTO won't grant patents for 'perpetual motion', nor for 'cold fusion', because they don't exist.

America is the greatest stronghold of innovation in the world. Other countries, not all friendly to us, record and analyze every US patent published.

You can be certain that foreign governments, that want to kill you and me, are using whatever they can divine from that patent to formulate weapons against us.

You can also be certain that pharmaceutical companies around the world are combing that patent for information so then can catch-up with the true authors and the company behind it.

So please, read the patent. And remember that companies threatened by competition will reveal just enough to patent something, but not so much as to give away everything their competitors need to know.

Thank you very much.

ABIOGENESIS (patented) is real! Deal with it.

Date: 2011/01/07 23:07:49, Link
Author: prong_hunter
Quote (phhht @ Jan. 07 2011,08:17)
Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Jan. 07 2011,07:12)
Abiogenesis isn't just improbable, I believe it is impossible!

Poofster,

Once there was no life.  Now there is life. Therefore abiogenesis is not only possible, it has demonstrably occurred.

As usual, your contention is confused and your explication off the target.

I understand you to mean that abiogenesis could not occur without the
intervention of a magical power.  Is that more correct?

Phhht,

Evidently IBIG is very busy, or at the least very hard to get a hold of.

I do not presume to put words into IBIG's mouth, but from having read almost the entire BW I think I can guess what IBIG would say.

Date: 2011/01/07 23:15:43, Link
Author: prong_hunter
Quote (phhht @ Jan. 07 2011,08:17)
   
Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Jan. 07 2011,07:12)
Abiogenesis isn't just improbable, I believe it is impossible!

Poofster,

Once there was no life.  Now there is life. Therefore abiogenesis is not only possible, it has demonstrably occurred.

As usual, your contention is confused and your explication off the target.

I understand you to mean that abiogenesis could not occur without the
intervention of a magical power.  Is that more correct?

Phhht,

Evidently IBIG is very busy, or at the least very hard to get a hold of (or it's just hard to get his attention).

I do not presume to put words into IBIG's mouth, but from having read almost the entire BW I think I can guess what IBIG would say.

I think IBIG would say that life on Earth didn't come from non-life but from God, who is alive. Thus life on Earth came from Life. And God has always been alive.

That position may not be acceptable to you and me, but I think that is IBIG's conviction.

Perhaps IBIG himself would like to clarify?

Date: 2011/01/09 14:33:35, Link
Author: prong_hunter
Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Jan. 09 2011,08:42)
I believe that God created life, therefore I believe that Abiogenesis (life arose from non-life by natural causes without the aid of a Creator) is wrong. You can't get around the fact that it is not KNOWN, how life actually came to be, therefore it would be a type of belief, for one to accept any way that life may have come into existence.  

Dear IBIG,

I guessed correctly, based upon your earlier posts, that you believe life comes only from life, and God has always been alive, thus his creation of life on Earth was not abiogensis.

I challenge your statement that "it is not KNOWN".

There is a US Patent that says it IS known. I don't believe you have read it. It is real. It has been issued by the US government, the same government that guarantees your right to say whatever you want.

You are very busy, I guess. I can't get you to address a post. Perhaps I should swear at you, insult you, in ALL CAPS, with lots of exclamation points!

You believe abiogenesis is impossible. PUT YOUR MONEY WHERE YOUR HEART IS!

You are a successful businessman. I'm convinced you tithe to your church, probably you double-tithe (don't tell me, I just want to convey the type of believer you are).

Why don't you hire a patent attorney and file a patent for "only life can create life"? If "life from non-life" can get a patent, then surely "only life can create life" can too.

If you really, truly believe it, and if you are the successful businessman you claim, why not do this for God and Church?

Thank you for reading this.

Date: 2011/01/11 19:56:01, Link
Author: prong_hunter
Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Jan. 11 2011,19:40)
Why don't you discuss with civility, and then I will response to your post.

Dear IBIG,

I know your business demands much of your attention. You probably haven't had time to read my earlier post.

Why don't you use your business success to file a patent for "life only comes from life"? Since there is already a patent for "creation of primordial life" from non-life, would it not be a great victory for God and Church to obtain a patent for "life only comes from life"?

Put your money where your heart is, so to speak. If your are truly convinced, then why not demonstrate it to the whole world? Forget all this forum stuff. If special creation is true, and you believe it, then why not prove it with a US patent?

Thank you for your attention.

Date: 2011/01/12 18:22:50, Link
Author: prong_hunter
Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Jan. 12 2011,06:58)
       
Quote (prong_hunter @ Jan. 11 2011,19:56)
         
Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Jan. 11 2011,19:40)
Why don't you discuss with civility, and then I will response to your post.

Dear IBIG,

I know your business demands much of your attention. You probably haven't had time to read my earlier post.

Why don't you use your business success to file a patent for "life only comes from life"? Since there is already a patent for "creation of primordial life" from non-life, would it not be a great victory for God and Church to obtain a patent for "life only comes from life"?

Put your money where your heart is, so to speak. If your are truly convinced, then why not demonstrate it to the whole world? Forget all this forum stuff. If special creation is true, and you believe it, then why not prove it with a US patent?

Thank you for your attention.

I find your post amusing, because you you state, since there is already a patent for "creation of primordial life" from non-life. You stated creation of primordial life, don't you see the irony of your post?

If God created life, when He created man He created man from non-life "from the dust of the earth".  

If God created life, then what would be the purpose of a patent for what He created? According to your logic, maybe someone should get a patent on the creation of humans:)

Dear IBIG,

I think you misunderstand.

In the context in which it was used, "creation of primordial life" from non-life, doesn't mean the US government granted a patent for God creating life. (You really need to read the patent.)

In the context of the patent, "creation of" means coming about by natural processes extant in the primeval Earth, and "primordial life" means the first appearance of life where before there was no life.

You said: "I believe that God created life, therefore I believe that Abiogenesis (life arose from non-life by natural causes without the aid of a Creator) is wrong." (IBIG-Jan 09, 2011, AtBC, IBIG forum, panel 17)

So there is no irony here. The word "creation" above does not mean divine creation. It doesn't even mean that 'scientists' created life. Life simply emerges from non-life by reproducing the natural conditions on the primeval Earth. That all that is necessary. No deities required.

This is what you define as Abiogenesis (see quote above).

So this patent is for the coming about by natural processes extant in the primeval Earth, the first appearance of life where before there was no life. (No Creator referenced.)

That's what the patent is about. That is Abiogenesis according to your definition. Your God didn't Create life. Life arose naturally.

So, if you truly believe in "life comes only from life", then why not put your money where your heart is?

Thank you if you have read this far.

Date: 2011/01/13 20:01:40, Link
Author: prong_hunter
Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Jan. 12 2011,18:50)
     
Quote (prong_hunter @ Jan. 12 2011,18:22)
       
Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Jan. 12 2011,06:58)
                 
Quote (prong_hunter @ Jan. 11 2011,19:56)
                 
Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Jan. 11 2011,19:40)
Why don't you discuss with civility, and then I will response to your post.

Dear IBIG,

I know your business demands much of your attention. You probably haven't had time to read my earlier post.

Why don't you use your business success to file a patent for "life only comes from life"? Since there is already a patent for "creation of primordial life" from non-life, would it not be a great victory for God and Church to obtain a patent for "life only comes from life"?

Put your money where your heart is, so to speak. If your are truly convinced, then why not demonstrate it to the whole world? Forget all this forum stuff. If special creation is true, and you believe it, then why not prove it with a US patent?

Thank you for your attention.

I find your post amusing, because you you state, since there is already a patent for "creation of primordial life" from non-life. You stated creation of primordial life, don't you see the irony of your post?

If God created life, when He created man He created man from non-life "from the dust of the earth".  

If God created life, then what would be the purpose of a patent for what He created? According to your logic, maybe someone should get a patent on the creation of humans:)

Dear IBIG,

I think you misunderstand.

In the context in which it was used, "creation of primordial life" from non-life, doesn't mean the US government granted a patent for God creating life. (You really need to read the patent.)

In the context of the patent, "creation of" means coming about by natural processes extant in the primeval Earth, and "primordial life" means the first appearance of life where before there was no life.

You said: "I believe that God created life, therefore I believe that Abiogenesis (life arose from non-life by natural causes without the aid of a Creator) is wrong." (IBIG-Jan 09, 2011, AtBC, IBIG forum, panel 17)

So there is no irony here. The word "creation" above does not mean divine creation. It doesn't even mean that 'scientists' created life. Life simply emerges from non-life by reproducing the natural conditions on the primeval Earth. That all that is necessary. No deities required.

This is what you define as Abiogenesis (see quote above).

So this patent is for the coming about by natural processes extant in the primeval Earth, the first appearance of life where before there was no life. (No Creator referenced.)

That's what the patent is about. That is Abiogenesis according to your definition. Your God didn't Create life. Life arose naturally.

So, if you truly believe in "life comes only from life", then why not put your money where your heart is?

Thank you if you have read this far.

Link To The Patent

Dear IBIG,

So, you found the patent. Good for you. But you didn't say anything.

Did you read it? Did you understand it?

It totally squashes your claim that abiogenesis is unscientific.

You may believe abiogenesis is impossible (this is America after all and you can believe anything you like), but you cannot say abiogenesis is unscientific.

Pretty much destroys your argument, no?

IBIG said on PT: "I believe the sole purpose of the scientific claim of Abiogenesis is to imply that there is no God. If one were not to believe in God, and wanted to promote such a view, then creating an unprovable, and unfalsifiable hypothesis that life came to be by natural causes without a Creator would be the way to go about it. Abiogenesis would be a great tool for evangelizing young minds away from believing in God, and turning them into Atheists. Implying God doesn’t exist with an unprovable, and unfalsifiable hypothesis should be prohibited from being taught in public school."

IBIG said on AtBC, Jan 7, 2011: "Abiogenesis isn't just improbable, I believe it is impossible! "

Believe what you will, but abiogenesis is scientific. It's patented!

And you are irrational (that means "without Reason").

Date: 2011/01/17 19:03:55, Link
Author: prong_hunter
Dear IBIG,

You don't know what to say. The truth does that to people.

Now that you're beginning to realize the difference between the way science works (nothing wrong with that), and the way faith works (nothing wrong with that), I have something else for you to ponder.

In the physics of sub-atomic particles there is a principle that states, "That which is not forbidden is compulsory."

That means, if an interaction or a particle is not forbidden by quantum mechanics, then it does exist, even if it exists at low probability.

Now, the science of chemistry is something like macro-quantum mechanics, and if "that which is not forbidden is compulsory" is true in micro-quantum mechanics then surely it is also true in macro-quantum mechanics as well.

And what is bio-chemistry but a specialize, but very important, subset of chemistry? So biochemistry is subject to the same principle "that which is not forbidden is compulsory".

And this is why life emerging from non-life, by natural means, without the intervention of any intelligent agent, is guaranteed: "that which is not forbidden is compulsory".

Carbon atoms have a proclivity for self-organization. You couldn't stop it if you tried, and neither is there any rule, law, or principle that forbids it.

Abiogenesis is guaranteed.

Date: 2011/01/17 19:06:00, Link
Author: prong_hunter
And it's patented!

Date: 2011/01/21 17:17:40, Link
Author: prong_hunter
Quote (phhht @ Jan. 20 2011,19:13)
 
Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Jan. 20 2011,08:07)
...God gave each of us a conscience... and ... by our conscience that we know right and wrong. So you could state that our conscience is the moral compass that God gave us...

Poofster,

As usual, I have trouble following the logic of your claims.  ...

What's going on here, Poofster?  Why can't your God get his own story straight?

Hey Phhht!

Miss your posts on PT.

Too busy?

Hope you return.

Tack så mycket!

Date: 2011/01/25 12:15:33, Link
Author: prong_hunter
mrg said:
...the point is that evolution works by the “incremental change” model, not the creationist “clean sheet of paper” model.

Newton was RIGHT!

Why don't creationists believe in Calculus?

Date: 2011/01/25 18:28:55, Link
Author: prong_hunter
Did you read the rejection letter Atheistoclast received from Evolutionary Biology on Panda's Thumb?

No wonder he is so bitter.  He is reduced to arguing his 'points' on Internet fora, instead of in peer-reviewed journals.  Why?  Because his 'points' won't pass peer-reviewed muster.

His arguments are just like his thesis: "No New Information!"

His argument/point/thesis adds "no new information" to the discussion of Evolution, Science, or anything.

Irony, no?

Pathetic, yes.

Date: 2011/01/27 16:26:04, Link
Author: prong_hunter
Quote (DSDS @ Jan. 27 2011,08:50)
...

Oh well, at least he proved one thing.  There is never any increase in information in the brain of a creationist.  Maybe that should be the law of conservation of information.

The Second Law of Creationist Dynamics (from the Creationist perspective): “The correctness of Creationists cannot decrease. It can only remain constant or increase.”

(And it can never go below zero, but that's another 'law'.)

The Second Law of Creationist Dynamics (from the mainstream science perspective): “The idiocy of Creationists cannot decrease. It can only remain constant or increase.”

Date: 2011/02/19 20:55:21, Link
Author: prong_hunter
After more than a year IBIG has been silenced by reason and logic and truth.

"That which is not forbidden is compulsory."

Abiogenesis is guaranteed.  And it's patented.

IBIG cannot respond intelligently, only unintelligently.

Date: 2011/02/20 07:40:55, Link
Author: prong_hunter
Quote (MichaelJ @ Feb. 20 2011,01:34)
One thing I found pretty interesting. IBIG appeared in the latest AIG thread at Pandas, but when the discussion got onto discussing the Bible he disappeared (Leaving Heddle and FL to defend the book). Almost like he isn't as happy making shit up about the bible as he is about science.

You need to read the 400 panels of the old Bathroom Wall at Panda's Thumb, most of which he is responsible for directly or as responses to his posts.  

IBIG quoted reams of bible verses, even quoted an entire 6,000 word sermon!

Never convinced one Panda of anything.

Fancies himself a bible expert.

Be careful what you wish for.

Date: 2011/03/03 18:29:28, Link
Author: prong_hunter
Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Mar. 03 2011,17:08)
   
Quote (phhht @ Mar. 03 2011,15:10)
At the bathroom wall, Poofster quotes IBIG:

"Do crystals contain a type of DNA that contains information that determines the morphology of crystals?"

"..., which allowed me to type and post this very post."

IBIG, glad to see you're back posting on AtBC.

Please help me understand what it is you're asking, exactly.  I don't understand.

Crystals don't 'have' DNA in the sense that biological organisms 'have' DNA.  phhht explained this.

The morphology of crystals is determined by the way elections in the atoms or molecules of the crystal interact with each other, nothing less, nothing more.

But that's not what you're asking, I suspect.

Somehow, I believe, you think you're going to trap Panda's with this clever question.  If I'm wrong, tell me so, and tell me why you asked this question.

Can you do this?

Date: 2011/03/06 10:29:03, Link
Author: prong_hunter
Quote (phhht @ Mar. 04 2011,17:38)
 
Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Mar. 04 2011,17:28)
   
Quote (phhht @ Mar. 04 2011,17:24)
     
Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Mar. 04 2011,17:09)

...could you explain what is the most likely result with tetraploidy in humans?

Poofster,

Your request made no sense to me.   I don't understand what you want an explanation for.

Could you re-state, or elaborate, or something?

Question has to do with the link in Wesley's post, read his link then you will understand the question.

I've read his post.  It's a model of clarity, and I understood it.

You, on the other hand, are a different story. You're unintelligible.

Congratulations phhht.  You've got IBIG responding to your posts.

Since no one has said it out loud, I'll project IBIG's gotcha:

"Since Man is the image of God, and since tetraploidy as a means of evolution-increasing-information doesn't work in Man, therefore Man is not subject to evolution, and cannot be the product of it."

That's what IBIG wants you to realize.

Has any one been turned to the other side by IBIG's argument?

Didn't think so.

Date: 2011/03/23 20:26:32, Link
Author: prong_hunter
Ibiggy sure got a spankin' over on the BW at PT.

Looks like he got his feelings hurt.

Said "BYE!"

Maybe he'd like to come play here.

Date: 2011/07/11 12:19:26, Link
Author: prong_hunter
After many thousands of posts on Panda's BW is there any doubt that IBIG is a preacher?

An itinerant, part-time preacher perhaps, but a preacher nonetheless.  With a cleaning business.  With a wife and two daughters (he said it on BW).

And he calls his anti-logic 'logic'.

BTW, IBIG you live in WV.

No offense intended, but did you meet your wife at a family reunion?

Date: 2011/07/12 06:55:08, Link
Author: prong_hunter
IBIG replied to Dave Luckett yesterday:

"I know according to you I’m a raving idiot, but I am not stupid enough to claim that I don’t know if I don’t know something:):):) You really stuck your foot in your mouth with that idiotic claim!!! "

IBIG said he is not STUPID enough to claim "I don't know" if he doesn't know something.

This may be my favourite IBIG quote of all time.

He thinks just like an Inquisitor in the Spanish Inquisition.  Scary.

Date: 2012/01/02 17:24:07, Link
Author: prong_hunter
Hey IBIG!

Long time no hear.

Did you see what AiG posted on Jan. 1st?

In an article on Mathematics AiG admitted that God is IMPOSSIBLE!

Can you believe it?

Here's what AiG said concerning Goedel's Incompleteness Theorem:

"There will always be a statement in any system that can’t be shown to be true or false. From a Christian perspective, Gödel proved that complete knowledge is unattainable."

Since God = complete knowledge, and since Goedel proved 'complete knowledge is unattainable', this proves that God does not exist - CANNOT EXIST!

Pretty amazing, isn't it?  From those astute theologians at AiG.

 

 

 

=====