Yet Another Failed Apologetic Tactic

apologetics are badBy the time anyone reads this, Roger, our single Christian troll, could be long gone.  While he is laughable, he’s also a good example of a failed apologetic tactic.  I haven’t come up with a good name for it, although I am certainly open to suggestions.  Essentially, the tactic is to continually ask for more and more and more evidence for a claim and when, inevitably, no more evidence can be given, the theist simply declares that because science can’t prove their claims, they don’t even have to try.  The fact remains that science has given a ton of evidence and religion has given absolutely none.

And yes, Roger, if you’re reading this, we’ve all known that you’re engaging in fallacious debate tactics all along.  You’re not fooling anyone.

It’s obvious that these apologists don’t actually have any evidence, or even understand what evidence is, they’re just trying to get away with not backing up their claims for as long as they possibly can.  Their standard response is “but you haven’t proven…” and when it’s pointed out that they haven’t done a damn thing, they’ll say “yes, I presented this!”  Of course, what they claim to have presented has been totally falsified and discredited but they’re not that interested because they think that holding out against the overwhelming mountains of evidence on the science side and refusing to accept that it proves it’s case somehow makes their entire lack of evidence justified.

But here’s the reality.  Even if science doesn’t prove it’s case, that doesn’t mean that religion is any more justified.  If science can’t prove, to your satisfaction, that the Big Bang happened, that doesn’t provide any more validation for creationism at all.  The only way the religious case gets made is to actually make it and back it up with objective evidence.  In that, this fallacy falls close to the “false dichotomy”.

The whole concept of “prove it to me! Prove it to me!  Prove it to me!  I’m not convinced, therefore I have no need to prove anything to you, I win!” is absurd but it’s also common among Christian apologists.  We see it all the time and that’s one reason Christian apologetics are so absurd on their face.  They pretend that they want fair treatment and equal time, yet they can’t bring equal evidence to the table.  They can’t bring anything to the table other than blind faith and logical fallacy, yet they expect that to be enough and they’re wrong.

I think it all goes back to my 30-second debate technique.  We can prove that nature exists.  When are the theists going to prove that the supernatural exists?  Hey Roger, if you want me to prove nature is real, come on over here and I’ll beat you over the head with a baseball bat until you either admit nature exists in the form of that bat, or you lose consciousness due to blunt force trauma.  I can prove reality, now you prove the supernatural, using any technique of your liking that produces comparable results.  Let us know when you can do that because until then, we’re not going to take your religious blabbering seriously.

And you shouldn’t take it seriously either, but we know you’ve got some problems upstairs.

252 thoughts on “Yet Another Failed Apologetic Tactic”

          1. Wee's comment supported the article in question. Then you opened your response with the word "yes"
            That shows you could well agree with the article and therefore my questions were valid.
            As I was conveying a question based on logical postulations I can only assume your defensive answer was because you've realised the stupidity of your opening statement and are attempting to divert the situation.

          2. I opened my response with "Yes?" That is a question.

            You can't rise above it can you.
            You can't actually read a comment and then without twisting or lying respond to it.
            A one word sentence was more than you could read and just respond to in an honest way without trying to make it something it wasn't.

            That's why you'e just a normal run of the mill troll, even if more obnoxious than most.

          3. Of course the word yes is not a question. It is a statement of agreement.
            Therefore I asked for clarity if you agree with wee's support of the article.
            There is nothing twisted in that. Its just simple logic

          4. Roger 174p · 2 days ago
            Yes, and hopefully it will be a level field of proof when the next discussions happen.

            So he admitted he was a troll

          5. We'll see how it plays out I guess.

            I'm not exactly holding my breath.
            The level of proof seems to be a sliding scale depending on which side of any argument is taken.

          6. My wife left me after repeatedly spending our entire life savings on penis enlargement surgery
            She couldn't take it any longer

          7. To clarify you opened your statement to Wee with yes as a statement as it did not habpve a question mark

          1. You make claims and when asked to back them you reply with a question and demand proof your false claims are wrong. When you debate and make a claim you need to provide objective evidence to back it up, not replying with a fucking retarded question

          2. I make claims then lay out the evidence to back it.
            Like the lack of evidence that the universe is behaving as if a big bang started things, then according to the Newtonian laws of bodies in motion, I used the retrograde orbit and rotation to back my claim.

            You haven't proven any of my evidence as being actually wrong.
            And I don't act like a retard and name call to try to cover for my lack of evidence as you seem to do.

          3. No, you don't. You lay out rationalizations. They are not the same thing. You say you're convinced, you don't say things that convince anyone else. The things you claim have already been explained by people far smarter than you, you just don't want to go look at those explanations because they come from people who think your beliefs are asinine.

          4. Sure I did.
            What did I say that was wrong? Go ahead and feel free to prove me wrong, and of course that you're not a failed apologetic for atheism.

          5. Six comments up the thread I did, and gave two examples that supported it.

            You have been a failed apologetic for atheism since. Just what this story is about.

          6. Let us know when you prove yourself correct. It's your responsibility to prove that your beliefs are true, not ours to prove you wrong. Look up "burden of proof".

          7. I gave examples, have you done even that much?

            I could play your game and say you have not proven atheism and it's your burden of proof to back the positions you take.

            A level playing field. Why is that so hard for your side?

        1. I'm sorry but what was the purpose of that statement.
          I can only assume it was a juvenile attempt at an insult.
          It highlights the utter hypocrisy in your comments when you call me a troll

          1. If you aren't up to the debate on forums like this, why do you show up?
            And what did your comment accomplish and what were it's aims?
            Juvenile insults? Talk about hypocrisy, you are the poster child.

          2. My comment was predominantly a question to understand why you attacked my statement to Wee.
            Now can you answer my question into your purpose of the attack?

      1. Are you stalking me (again), Roger? Is it because that's the only female attention you can get? Sorry, you're not my type, but thanks anyway.

        1. Are you being an ill mannered shrew again?
          Is this the only male attention you get is when you insult me and have the same tossed back at you from a distance and with a bottle of vinegar and water handy in case you get too close?

          1. I believe Roger is equating himself with a douche. Freud said "There are no mistakes" I think Roger has hit this one on the head. Vinegar & water. Roger writes his own rip's. Perfect, typical Roger. Notice how he equates Vinegar, and water to women as like having Holly water context to Vampires. Very telling as to his Homosexual sexual proclivities. Not the we as Atheist will judge you for what you are Roger, but your fellow Conservatives over at CVN might. Roger, YOU NEED TO CHILL GIRL!

          2. Still the loser that never got over being a has been at Rays?

            What you may or may not pretend to believe isn't really relevant, what I said was.
            You just can't stand not spewing regularly, even if it's days apart.

          3. Wow, still a loser after 149,000 comments who is nothing more than a low level 174p. You are the very example of loser! Quantity dose not equal quality Roger. You are still an IDIOT! And no amount of your comment spamming, Stalking, and TROLLING will ever change that. You are nothing but a joke on Intense Debate.

          4. Wow, still a hack troll after less comments. Who has nothing to offer but your lame insults and personal attacks.

            Have you thought about reading a story and commenting on the story like normal folks who come to this forum? You are nothing but a carbuncle on Intense debate IMO.

          5. Yep, you're still the rude ill mannered kind of person who always thinks if they are just horrible enough that they will always get the last word in simply so they can preen their old shabby ego.

          6. Hmmm….that's never once occurred to me — sounds like you're pretty familiar with it though, the "…horrible enough that they will always get the last word in simply so they can preen their old shabby ego". That seems to be your SOP, which would explain why the words came so easily to you. You *might* have some legitimacy if you didn't stalk others 24/7, always trying to get the last word in.

          7. Still projecting? I was wondering, if I was going to exactly return insult for insult I wonder what kind of animal I could claim you are 'enjoying', I just don't don't see why I should insult any particular animal.

        1. You know you've said that. That doesn't make it true.

          And I have had people who won't back their positions demand I provide more evidence while offering none. So, I agree with this article but just not the targets it is implying.

          1. You used a term from the story, nothing more.

            And it must have been hard using words that long so early in the day.
            Can you offer any evidence or proof that I've done that? Nope, then you're the one that the story is pointing to.

          2. No, I took a direct quote from the story. Try reading and talking about the story.

            Roger, our single Christian troll,

          3. You took an excerpt from the story, I said "Quote me" which would be the entire quote.

            You aren't up to this are you? No wonder you like hiding in the shadows.

          4. Still can't discuss the story can you?

            Roger, our single Christian troll, we’ve all known that you’re engaging in fallacious debate

          5. Still can't use the entire quote can you?

            It would show that you're just the typical second string garden variety troll.

          6. I see you are still here for personal attacks and insults.

            It's just what trolls do.

            Since you never prove anything then it is an article about people such as yourself.

          7. The story is about insulting your stupidity and lying. Why can't you discuss the story?

          8. Not really.
            I've given all sorts of evidence for my beliefs.

            You haven't shown that any of the claims I use as evidence is actually not what I say it is. You haven't shown that there isn't a retrograde orbit when I say there is for example.

            And when you make claims you haven't shown it's proof, you simply state you don't have to educate me on basics of science like evolution.

            I haven't used that line against you, but have kept from lowering my self in that manner.

            So, no this doesn't hit me in between the eyes. It simply means that you have no flexibility to listen to alternative explanations for the things around us that contradict your own version of origins.

          9. No, you've given rationalizations for your beliefs, reasons that you believe it, not reasons that anyone else should take you seriously. That's not evidence. Evidence is something ANYONE can examine. When do you think you'll get around to presenting any?

        1. You've driven most of the others off the forum, at least the ones we used to use.

          I'm not an easy one to push around, you can spam me, you can insult me and yet…. here I am.

          1. I was just taking a statement from the article. The article you are ignoring. Why are you here?

    1. There's no such thing in science as 100% proof. You simply cannot prove anything to any degree of absolute certainty, it's an unrealistic expectation. However, you get theists who think that because we can't get 100%, that the 99% that we can get isn't any better than the 0% that they can get. Theists are nuts.

      1. I hate it when Christians claim you cannot be 100% certain there is no God. That is why I retort with" Yes, one cannot logically be 100% certain, but I can determine that it is highly unlikely that a God exist based on the evidence", or lack of. When you go to bed at night; you cannot be 100% certain you will wake up the next morning. However based on the evidence, and past experience one can ascertain a probable outcome to this event as a high probability of past perfomance; that is a reality. Their is no need for people to be 100 % certain for the existence, or non existence of something for which their is no evidence to begin with. So there is a high probability that the there is no God based on the evidence that one uses to determine reality it's called deductive reasoning,100% proof not required. I will go with a 99% probability over a 100% delusion of certain any day.

        1. You must not be a Christian.

          You don't to tell me what I can be certain of.
          You may explain why you have different conclusions, but that's all.

          1. A grasshopper walks into a bar. The bartender says "Hey, we've got a drink named after you." Grasshopper says "You've got a drink named Steve?"

          2. Anything about which you have concluded that you are 100% certain about is a self-delusion. It is comforting to believe you know something with 100% certainty. But knowing something with 100% certainty is not possible unless you are able to see into all future times and access whatever new knowledge that would be available to future generations but is not yet available to us in the here and now.

          3. No, not because I said so but for the reason I cited. Unless you are able to see into the future at all times and therefore access all future knowledge, it is impossible for you to know anything with 100% certainty. Just look at any point in time in the past at facts that were believed to be true but now are known not to be true because of the discovery of new knowledge. This is evidence that it is highly unlikely that anything is presently known with 100% certainty. It is possible that any fact or piece of knowledge that you think you know with 100% certainty in the present could turn out to be wrong as the result of the discovery of as-of-yet unknown knowledge at some future date.

            If you think this is false then provide an argument for the proposition that any piece of knowledge that you currently know is now and will for all time be known to be true with 100% certainty. And don't just state some proposition and state that we know it with 100% certainty. Provide the argument that through logic establishes beyond question that there is no possibility that the piece of knowledge you provide cannot be false and thus must be known with 100% to be true now and will remain to be known true with 100% certainty for all points in future time.

          4. The Bible has predictions about the future.
            I don't need to see into the future when I believe in the Book that does.

  1. Two scientists walk into a bar. The first one says “I’ll have some H2O.” The second one says, “I’ll have some H2O too.” and then he dies.

  2. How cool is it that there's an article specifically pointing out that Roger can't back up anything he claims as far as proving there's a god. Roger — prove there's a god or STFU.

    1. Oh, he won't because he can't and he knows it. Therefore he has to rationalize his way around that failure and try to make belief without evidence sound remotely reasonable when, in reality, it's just not.

      1. I have.
        From retrograde orbits, to evidence of intelligent design.
        You may not agree with the conclusions I arrive at, but you haven't proven the evidence itself is wrong.

        I have risen above the levels of proof you have offered.

        1. So there once was this wasp that lived in a jungle. This was not your ordinary wasp though-he was smart, philosophical even. One day he finally got fed up with his repetitive, insignificant life and decided that he would leave his hive, his family, his entire close-knit wasp community and he would go out into the world and make something of himself, just like the humans do. So the wasp enrolls in school, and passes with flying colors. Remember, this is a very smart wasp. He gets his high school diploma in a little under 3 years, with a 4.0 GPA and all that snazz. After high school, believe it or not, the wasp gets accepted to Harvard. Harvard! This too proves to be no challenge for our hero, as he graduates in just two years, again a 4.0, on the Dean's list, and all that snazz. Not to mention all the clubs and sports he was in-the newspaper, rowing, student government-and the fact that he was by far the most popular student on campus. Even his professors looked up to him. He goes on to get two PhDs, and when he finishes his education, the wasp faces a bit of a dilemma. How does he apply his knowledge now? Where does he go from here? He decides to try out politics. After all, he was popular throughout school, did well in Harvard government. So he runs for mayor, and wins in a landslide. He greatly reforms the city, fixing virtually all its major problems. He runs for governor and again wins in a landslide. Two years later, the presidential election was coming up, and the wasp decides he might as well go for it. Of course, he wins in the largest landslide in US presidential history. His presidency goes exceedingly well-he is loved by all parties, and has the highest approval ratings in history. He also finds the cures for cancer, AIDS, and broken hearts while in the White House. After 8 years (yes, of course he was reelected) the time has come for him to leave his office. Even his successor his saddened by the wasp’s departure, but they all know it’s what must be done. Back at his vacation home in California his first day after leaving office, the wasp looks back on his long and fruitful life. He realizes that he hasn't been back to his hive at all since that first day he left. He suddenly feels a twang of guilt as he realizes how much he misses his parents and his little brother. So he heads back to the hive, looking more worn out than he remembers. He goes inside and greets his family, who are overjoyed at the sight of him. He talks about how his life has gone as his family listens in wonderment. Eventually he decides he is thirsty, so he decides to visit the old watering hole he remembered. Once he gets there though, there’s an extremely long line. He decides it’s worth the wait, so gets in line. One hour. Two hours. This is the slowest moving line he’s ever seen! Eventually he calculates that it could be a few days before he gets to the front of the line, so decides it’s not worth it. He decides to go get some cider to drink instead, but waddya know, another huge line of people waiting for cider! He remembers one other drinking area that never had a long line-fruit punch! So he decides to go get punch. He arrives, and lo and behold, there's no punchline

          1. Nice word jumble…. I found 'idiot', 'lame', 'foolish', and 'retarded' …all on the diagonal …
            Some separation, (paragraphs), would be your friend….

        2. So you've never convinced a living soul of what you believe in — then why do you continue to try? I've never once tried to convince anyone to become an atheist for several reasons. First, it's none of my business what they believe in. Second, it's rude to try to force such personal beliefs onto another. Third, it's none of my business what they believe in. Maybe it's time you take up another cause? Because you've lost at this one due to your inability to prove a damn thing. There's nothing wrong with that — the problem lies in continuing to do the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. Move on, dude….as I said, you've lost this, big time.

          1. I realize you are just out ranting because it's all you have.

            Where have I ever been told my job in life is to convince anyone of anything?
            And you never convince me you're a rational thinking person, but here you are all the same.

            First, it's none of your business what I believe.
            Second if you disagree just explain why and make your own case.
            Third, why can't you ever actually discuss anything without all the drama?
            Foul language just shows you're so limited you have to show your lack of manners.

            And I' haven't lost. You're just the shrew that can't wait until halloween before you fly in.

        3. Retrograde orbits do not establish the existence of God. You have not offered a logical argument from which the proof of God's existence flows from the observed fact that some planets have retrograde motion. By the way retrograde motion is not the name for an actual physical phenomenon. It is the name given to an apparent, not a real, phenomenon. The planet Mars does not actually reverse its course and begin moving around the Sun in the opposite direction. It only appears from our position in the solar system to do this because Earth's orbital path is smaller in circumference and its orbital speed is faster. Thus there comes a point in Earth's motion around the Sun when it passes Mars and thus Mars looks to us like it has reversed direction. It actually has not. It continues to move in the same direction around the Sun as does the Earth.

          As for intelligent design, this too is only an appearance, not a real thing. The universe looks designed but there is no evidence that it actually is designed. In fact much of the universe has a poor design. The universe is an incredibly hostile place outside of the comfort of our own little planet. Any moderately component engineer would not have created the universe we inhabit with the many design flaws it contains. Your God does not exist, but if it did we would have to conclude that it is a bumbling idiot when it comes to the skills of engineering and designing.

          1. they establish that forces beyond the normal newtonian laws of physics put things into place.

            And as for your denials of intelligent design, they too are only an appearance not the real thing.

          2. They do no such thing. The fact that you think they do reveals the astonishing degree to which you do not understand scientific concepts. The motion of the planets are fully explained by Newtonian and Einsteinian physics. There is nothing about the motion of the planets that requires the assumption of something beyond these branches of physics to explain the planetary motions. You are assuming that there is something beyond Newtonian physics that explains how the planets got to be where they are.You have not offered any evidence to establish the truth of this assumption. Furthermore, the origin of the planets and how the came to be where they presently are is more than adequately explained by modern physics and cosmologywithout the need of any supernatural causal agent. Any of the following websites should be adequate to inform of you the science behind the origin and evolution of the solar system:
            (4)… (Watch the video)

            Or consult the chapter on the origin of the solar system in any freshman level college astronomy textbook.

            My denials of intelligent design are real. Now it is possible that you have lost your mind and think that this conversation we are having is not actually occurring. If this is the case I can see how you might believe that my denials of intelligent design are not real. But you would have to assume or believe that I, the person with whom you are conversing, am not real as well. You are free to do this. But if this is what you chose to believe then you are having a very real psychotic break with reality and really should seek help from a psychiatrist.

          3. Yes, they do. The big bang exerting the same force would have put all things effected by that force into the same sort of motion. Retrograde orbits show that didn't happen.

            And if that bothers you, perhaps you need that visit on the couch.

          4. Yes, it's not challenged that there are retrograde orbits.
            And its' not challenged that there are newtonian laws of motion.

            Do you challenge either one?

          5. Do you have any evidence to back up your claim?

            Your opinion means nothing and is not objective evidence like Dogma presented in his links

          6. Are you denying there are bodies in our solar system in retrograde orbit?

            Are you denying there are such laws as Newtonian laws of motion?

            Prove it.

          7. Then try having origins of an atheist without evolution.

            You as an atheist have to have a origin theory that makes it completely by chance, a random event. Ergo, evolution.

          8. Nope. To be an atheist, all I have to do is not believe in gods. That's it. I have to believe nothing else and no other belief I have is required to be an atheist. You're desperately trying to avoid the burden of proof for your god, since we all know you've got nothing, that you're trying to invent reasons why other people can't back up atheism. All you're doing is making a fool of yourself. Evolution is not why I do not believe in gods. Evolution has nothing whatsoever to do with why I don't believe in gods. You have, however, said that intelligent design is one of the reasons you believe in God, therefore, intelligent design, especially the part with the intelligent designer, is part of the concepts that you need to demonstrate is true.

            Logic and reason, Roger. You're still doing it entirely wrong.

          9. So you have no thinking on origins?

            I don't believe that for a moment.

            If you simply didn't believe you would shrug and yawn when Christianity comes up, and that isn't the case.

          10. It's irrelevant to atheism, just like my taste in automobiles is irrelevant to atheism. I do not claim that evolution proves atheism. You claim that intelligent design proves God. Therefore, you have to demonstrate it. I do not. You need to learn the basics of intelligent, rational debate. Any claim that you make, you have to prove.

            You've just entirely failed to do that.

          11. The atheists that I've spoken to don't consider it irrelevant. You might now for the sake of this debate, but most need evolution to explain why they are here.

            And once more, I have to correct you. I don't not say intelligent design proves God. I say it proves a designer.

          12. Cool, go talk to them. You're not here to talk to them though so they're entirely irrelevant to this discussion. I have no need to explain why we are here at all. We are. We couldn't have this discussion without being here. That has nothing to do with atheism.

            And let's be honest, your designer is God. You just know that you can't get from point A to point B rationally but that's still the bottom line. You've also said that you believe in God because of intelligent design, hence if the designer isn't God, you couldn't say that.

            You're just painting yourself into corners. Just admit you can't justify your beliefs rationally and be done with it.

          13. The weakness of your position isn't so much in what you do say.

            It's in what you can't say.
            Let's be honest, you can't have any origins in atheism without the theory of evolution. Why not just admit it?

            And my realization that intelligent design is a logical conclusion to the diversity in the world is just that. Each society and culture have their own version of designer and all or none of us may be correct, or even close.

            And I notice you refuse to go into any room that corners.

          14. No, it's in your complete and total misunderstanding of the position. The weakness is all yours. You cannot demonstrate that your beliefs are factually true, that's why people reject your beliefs as ridiculous. You're stuck trying to glue all kinds of ideas to atheism because you can't acknowledge that you've entirely failed to show how your beliefs are correct. That's your failure, it certainly isn't mine.

          15. What weakness?

            You can't deny the features of complexity and diversity, that lead me to my position on intelligent design.

            You can't say that the Newtonian laws of physics can be selective on retrograde orbits.

            The weakness isn't mine.
            You offer nothing as an alternative and when pressed say you aren't responsible for my education.

            Do you stand for anything?
            How can you explain as an atheist any origin at all other than the theory of evolution?

            If you don't have a weak argument, I'm waiting for an answer.

          16. Proof at the drop of a hat and then when the tables are turned you consider 'ethnic legend' to be proof when anyone last asked you for some.

            Can I use legend and ethnic beliefs as proof next time?

          17. What exactly do you think a retrograde orbit is? You are aware, or are you not, that ALL the planets orbit the Sun in the same direction? Retrograde motion is not a real phenomenon. It is the name astronomers have given to something that looks as though it is happening but is not. Retrograde motion is similar to the apparent motion of the Sun around the Earth. If you look into the sky during the course of a day, it appears as though the Sun is moving across the sky, giving the impression that it is moving around Earth. But this is not what is actually happening. The Earth is moving around the Sun. Retrograde motion is like this. It looks as thought Mars reverses its direction of motion. But it does not actually do this. So retrograde motion (there is no such thing as a retrograde orbit) is not evidence of what you are claiming. It can't be evidence of this because retrograde motion is no more a real phenomenon than is the once widely-held belief that the Sun revolves around Earth

          18. How exactly would the exact same force exerted on all interstellar bodies have different reactions to that same force in opposition to the newtonian laws of motion?

          19. "Yes, they do".

            No, they do not. I am a retired science teacher. I taught astronomy, physics, chemistry, Earth science for 22 years. I know far more science than do you. There is nothing in astronomy or physics that supports your claims. What you are asserting here is not part of the knowledge base of any of these sciences. You have concocted these ideas yourself. You certainly were never taught this nonsense by any science teacher or any person knowledgeable about the sciences of astronomy or physics.

            "The big bang exerting the same force would have put all things effected by that force into the same sort of motion. Retrograde orbits show that didn't happen."

            The Big Bang did not put the planets or stars in their place. You obviously do not understand the Big Bang Theory. The first stars formed hundreds of millions of years after the Big Bang event. So it could not have been responsible in the way you are implying for the origin and placement of stars. The planets of our solar system formed approximately 9 billion years after the Big Bang event. Again, the Big Bang event, therefore, could not have been responsible for the formation of the planets or their present location.

            Retrograde orbits (actually, it is called retrograde motion) is not a real phenomenon. It therefore can not be evidence of any forces or the nonsense you are claiming here. Try imagining this: a race track that is one mile in circumference, encircled by another racetrack that is two miles in circumference. Imagine placing a race car on each track at the same point on each track. Now start both cars around the track with the car on the smaller inner track moving faster than the car on the larger outer track. At some point the car on the inner track will pass the car on the outer track. From the perspective of the person in the car on the inner track it will appear as though the car on the outer track has started to move backwards, even though it actually has not. This is what happens in retrograde motion. Mars looks like it has started to move backwards. But it really hasn't. It is still moving in the same direction around the Sun as the Earth. It only looks like it no longer is because the Earth is on a shorter orbital path and traveling at a higher speed as a result of its closer distance to the Sun. So Earth passes Mars, making it appear as though Mars has reversed direction. But this is not what it has really done. Thus, this retrograde motion is not evidence of what you are claiming: the existence of God or a supernatural force that has placed the planets where they are. The retrograde motion is explained perfectly well by Newtonian physics. The origin of the solar system and the location of the planets is explained perfectly well by Newtonian physics and modern cosmology without the need of a supernatural force or deity.

            Once again you show a completely wrong understanding of the science that explains the origin of the solar system, and the motion of the planets in our solar system. You need to stop talking about this subject because with each post you are showing a greater and greater level of misunderstanding and ignorance. I remind you, before you reply, that you are conversing with a science teacher, one who taught for 20-plus years the very subjects that you are incorrectly speaking about in this conversation.

            And what bothers me about what you are saying is your arrogant assumption that you know what you are talking about when in fact you have no idea. I am bothered as well by your stubborn refusal to learn the correct facts and abandon the stupid incorrect ones you keep repeating. But none of this bothers me to the point that I need to seek the help of a psychiatrist. This is because I understand reality and am representing it accurately in this discussion. You on the other hand do not understand reality and are inaccurately representing what science actually tells us about the universe, including the planets and our solar system. Science does not lend any support to the claim that God exists or that some supernatural force applied by any deity is responsible for any part of the universe or the universe itself. You are the one who needs the couch and the serious attention of a qualified psychiatrist.

          20. Yes, they do. You should know if you have a law, it's been demonstrated to work every time.

            The law is that the same force will cause the same reaction, and retrograde orbits are a different result.

            You can write 50 paragraphs, but the core of the issue is still the same.

          21. You haven't provided one single piece of external data other than your position of belief so you have no evidence
            Retrograde motion in planets doesn't exist so you have no basis

          22. Read your last link you uneducated cretin!
            You stated 5 posts up retrograde "orbits" (motion) exist and this post actually show how it is an optical illusion
            You are confusing retrograde motion (orbit) with retrograde rotation planets spin on its axis and which can be explained by collisions in the early solar system.

          23. You actually read a link? I'm shocked.
            But there is retrograde rotation and those bodies in question don't have visible evidence of collisions. So, you're still wrong. The newtonian laws of motion are specific.

          24. So we've established that retrograde orbits are indeed nothing more than an optical illusion and your statement 7 posts up is wrong.
            Also as you cannot prove that these planets weren't subject to collisions in the early solar system you cannot use their spin direction as evidence of a god
            Additionally do you even know how planets are formed (the scientific method not the magical one BTW)

          25. You can't prove they were subject to those collisions or that if they did have such a collision it would have resulted in this retrograde spin.

            So, you're still the short bus, half brained kind of person. It was convenient of you to admit that too.

            19 minutes ago @ Storyleak – Lawsuit: DEA Gave Reco… · 1 reply · +1 points
            "Only seems a lot for a moron but for anyone with half a brain about 60 secs"

            In kind insults. I'd rather have an adult discussion but I do meet people where they are.

          26. Well I'm glad you admit you were wrong on the retrograde orbit!
            On the spin the evidence of collisions is there because of the direction of which they spin and you cannot prove otherwise.

            I'm only a half brain but compared to a gob-shite that thinks googling a name is detailed stalking I'm a genius!
            See you took the as down. Don't you want to be roomies with al?

          27. Still sticking to a theory with not proof or evidence?

            There are no visible signs of collision on the bodies with retrograde rotation.

            Is this something people with half a brain do, make guesses and then pretend that no proof is needed?

          28. Seriously? There are signs of impacts on our planet and we aren't rotating in retrograde.

            Basic science, let's actually use it shall we?
            If the same force was what put everything into motion at the big bang speed for the planets rotating ought to be simple, mass and surface area, one to absorb the energy for motion and the other taking more energy for the same speed.

            Do we see that if there is retrograde orbits? The speed for the gas giants should be the fastest and the rotation should not only all be in the same direction but the same speed depending on mass.

            The theory simply has too many exceptions according to basic science.

          29. Roger as of1142 est todays score for your comments -137. Well done. The score was calculated using a diminutive that any points you gained in your protective TROLL blogs were thrown out do too bias. CVN, pissed on Pirates, and those losers over at That ridiculous Birther site no longer count for they are to afraid of the light of open debate. YOU LOSE! Are you still playing to WIN LOSER?

          30. Still the well organized posse of trolls?

            That's all your post suggests, nothing more.
            That and I'm not a slimy coward that can't stand facing a hostile group if I need to, to defend my values and religion.

            And you? Not so much.

          31. Posse? I am the Anti Roger. Where you stalk, and harass I mark you down, and promote your victims.. This is my only purpose. Unlike others I do not care to debate the village IDIOT known as Roger. You will fail. PS numb nuts I vote like a democrat. Wink, wink.

          32. You are giving yourself credit where it isn't deserved. Airs, I think is the term my grandma used. You are giving yourself airs.

            Not that it's uncommon among liberal hack trolls. You don't contribute, can't debate or discuss, yet waltz in to throw mud and pretend you have credibility at all, let alone the credibility to decide who is winning.

            You don't even understand the game going on let alone what it takes to win and lose.

            You can show immaturity and tacitly admit that you can't debate or discus by doing the stealth approach. Don't get me wrong, it's worth taking the thumb just so that you stay shut up.

            But do you really think you are proving anything? Your only purpose is the same as the posse that trolls the sites and stops any reasonable debate going on.

            I won't fail, you don't understand my definition of the term 'failure'. You don't even understand why I'm here let alone why me, and so many other conservatives struggle so hard to resist the fascist dictator that wants to impose marxism on us.

          33. Take a pill Nancy. Life must be hard under your bridge. You used that troll bridge comment 2 weeks into your comment posting. It was worn out by then, and 5 years later you are still using it? Get some new material. Duh! you make this easy.

          34. Take your own pill. You advocate for liberal policies that have never led to the freedoms and utopia that Alinsky talked about.

            All those state controlled pills, taken after the fascist regime allows the treatment only leads to financial and societal collapse.

            Why would you pretend you're winning?

          35. "Do we see that if there is retrograde orbits"

            Well there are no retrograde orbits as you've proven yourself by not actually reading links before posting the. (Or not understanding it which is more likely)

            Let me ask you this do you know when scientists believe the big bang happened and when the solar system formed?

          36. I can tell you are just as stupid now as when you posted before. Even you admitted that it existed as an optical illusion, if the same big bang set things in motion as I mentioned earlier to Cephus then speed should be easily computed with mass and surface area determining the speed of orbit. Gas giants would be fastest and the illusion of retrograde orbits would be easy to compute, and so far you haven't done that.

            You don't seem to do much though, just troll and spam like the rest of the posse. What did you do, call in reinforcements?

          37. Roger gets his information from reading science fiction novels meant for teen girls.

            No joke. He is 52 years old and reads whole series of books about young girls exploring their feelings for hot young guys.

          38. And you seem to not bother reading much of anything as long as you can lurk and seemingly stalk people.

            And you sure do seem upset that I have varied interests. Unlike you I don't hide in a basement afraid of reality.

          39. A 52 year old man interesred in reading a full series of books meant to be read by teen girls pining for boys for the first time is creepy as hell.

          40. Makes my skin crawl at the thought of it
            Have you seen if FB page?
            Its fkin weird too and with a diagram of some sort of school/mine/ space station

          41. Oh compared to you I'm very normal
            Any guy who spends on average 10 hours a day 7 days a week posting bollocks is not normal

          42. But you do that, and so do others in the posse. They may take turns using different profile and guest profiles while hiding behind strange ISP's but don't think you're fooling anyone.

          43. What? The amount I post pails into insignificance compared to you!. You see I have a life with a career family friends and hobbies outside of this. Unlike you of course

          44. I have a life, you can buy two of the results on amazon. Can you say the same? The second one is better, and if you as a liberal can't afford it, I'd even gift you a copy of the ebook.

          45. I'll take your word for it. How many friends does he have. More than a handful would surprise me.

          46. When you have deviant sexual stalkers, you don't live your life on the internet, you live it in reality. That's harder to track digitally.

          47. I go weeks without posting unlike you who's every waking moment is based here or other sites. Since I last made a comment over 3das ago you have posted several dozens. Now that is sad

          48. Is it my fault that the posse has been busy.

            I'd rather they were not spamming the other sites but why should I let you decide what amount of comments are reasonable for me?

          49. I don't decide what is "reasonable"
            I've just pointed out just how lacking your life is spending every waking hour here

          50. I was very surprised to see it was 4. But one had a PIC of R2D2 as his PIC so let's call it 3
            He posts a lot but never getting a response

          51. You sure don't engender the confidence to have real pics in public view.

            You don't 'have a pic on your profile, what does that say about you, compared to your last comment?

            You just can't avoid spamming sites. It's just what the posse does.

          52. The fact its showing you up as a liar (as per the fb comment) is a great advantage.
            So you call me out for not using a PIC and when I ask for the benefits of doing so you don't give a straight answer.

          53. The fact that you ignore how that facenbook posting got there shows you're the sad little puppy whining at the door an s wanting to get in.

          54. N9t at all just pointing out that you are a liar. Hardly an act of a Christian. Very relevant on this atheist site

          55. Pointing out you're a sack of dung wou;ld not be Christian, unless you are a sack of dung and it was spoken out of love.

          56. The same Bbile says not to throw pearls to swine. You need to make up your mind. Do you want me to go by the letter of the Bible or not?

            Also that FB post wasn't posted to FB it was posted to a story with links.

          57. The idea that the person who said this:

            Roger'sGirlfriend replied to your comment on Raymond Ibrahim Discusses New Book with Glenn Beck / Frontpage Magazine :

            "I want to f u c k your eye socket. That is what domestic terrorists need. "

            When a sick deviant stalker who even would think something like that is focused on my sex life I find it upsetting enough to take legal action.

            You're not just a sick pervert but your'e a coward as well, hiding behind communist chinese ISP addresses. To know so many o them makes me wonder if you're one of their effort to weaken America and our western culture.

            You certainly offer nothing of a positive nature. NOTHING.

          58. MODERATOR. Roger is throwing around his lawsuit again on your website.

            How long are you going to let this continue?

            I can't make a comment without him pushing his lawsuit on me on your forum.

            Then he pretends it an accident, over and over again.


          59. We were told to stop mentioning your lawsuit, and I have kept up my part, but you disrespect the rules of this site, You don't have a right to post here, you must follow the rules, and you refuse time and time again.

            And if you are allowed to have special treatment, then I should be able to defend myself against this inappropriate attacks,

          60. It;s all in print. You keep bringing it up, tryig to bully me with threats because you can't win with debate.

            And I can't defend against that bullying on this forum because i obey the rules of the site.

            I am not sure why you get special treatment and are allowed to continue.

            I guess I have to believe in god, then I can break the rules all day on this site. So for now on, I believe in god.

          61. Nothing surprises me
            His website is creepy to say the least esp when mentioning his neices and nephews

          62. And you just can't keep up with a lot of things.

            How is the next bailout of Ireland coming? You sure do sounds like part of the posse all right. All insults, nothing else. You trolls just aren't capable of it.

          63. I keep telling you mentioning Ireland's bailouts does not insult me so keep it up if you wish
            Your reference to you brother's and or sister's children is disturbing however

          64. I keep reminding you of them because you defend the liberal policies that keep failing.

            You back failure and think you still have credibility. Every time I need to remind you that you have flawed positions and really have no credibility I will remind you of those multiple bailouts.

            And if you think an uncle should remain aloof and uncaring, then you're disturbing.

          65. Ireland's bailouts came as a result of in restrained capitalism by the banks.
            Mistakes were made and lessons learned but I must stress its not my fault so your jibes do not offend me in the slightest!

            On the subject of your nieces and nephews your tone is sickening as you cross the border where caring becomes something disturbing

          66. They came as a result of what Margeret Thatcher called "Running out of other people's money'.

            Dont' blame me if you're a loser that depends on German funding.

            And frankly, do you seem the kind of person who is qualifed to discuss my family? I don't think so. And the more you mention it the more unbalanced you sound.

          67. My family life is great
            Happily married for almost 7 years with an amazing daughter. Close extended family too
            But nothing creepy as in you family outlook

          68. If it is an optical illusion then it doesn't actually exist. You realise that don't you.
            Also you need to prove your statements before I have to disprove anything

          69. Did you read the links?

            The illusion is that they go backwards, created by faster and slower speeds as they rotate the sun relative to our earth. If they were put into motion by the same force, why is that?

            Hmmm? You might try reading the thread before responding to it.

          70. Im happy still to see you were wrong on the existence of retrograde orbits and the information provided by one of YOUR links proved THAT YOU WERE WRONG.

            No the evidence is their spin and you cannot prove that there weren't collisions.
            Unless you can prove there weren't collisions you cannot use retrograde spin as evidence of a god.

            BTW I'm only using the identical "logic" you use when stating that intelligent design results in diversity because we can see there is diversity.
            Its a double edged sword you little schmuck

          71. Did they? Not really, you should read the thread, I realize most hack trolls think that the world revolves around them, but the discussion went on after you left. Want to try it again and leave for a while?

          72. Yes really!
            Your post proved your statement wrong
            You are so thick that you provide links to argue against your own points!

          73. Nope, and you can't actually address the issues I bring up. You're not up to it.

            You can't even figure out a diagram for a early teen book, how are you going to follow adults on a serious discussion?

            You can't, evidently.

          74. This may come as a shock to you.
            But I'm not here to discuss my book purchases with trolls who use that as an excuse to name call.

            You aren't smart enough to understand thoughtful answers, you aren't quick enough to understand sic-fi evidently and you have such a limited ability to even follow a discussion it would be wasted on you.

            That said, I read a book before I gift it to anyone. When I buy a book I earn the right to review it.

            Even those I normally wouldn't read.
            I give fair reviews so those reading the review have an idea what to expect.

            Let the posse pounce on that!

          75. So you get a kick out of reading books designed for teen girls and you question my mental capacity!

          76. Nj, I realize you aren't able to even pretend you are here for a civil discussion.

            If I enjoyed the book or not I wrote a fair review so that the next potential buyer would have realistic expectations. I read a book before gifting it to make sure there was nothing in it that I would find (or the recipient) objectionable.

            That's just what mature people do.

            For you to find that calls into question my mental capacity shows how immature and rigid your ideology is.

            And you're a lesser man for it, IMO, it shows you don't have an open mind, or even consider that those with one might be superior.

          77. Are you the posse troll that is assigned to spam all weekend?

            Usually it's alinsky. Did you lose the draw this time, and if so what is you quota?

          78. I noticed you side stepped the issue and question.

            You seem to the troll here spamming everything this weekend, did Alinsky need the time off? Did Poof need to wrack up more frequent flier miles on her broom?

            Why you? Were you the last choice and everyone else had a excuse not to show up?

          79. IM not answering your question until you answer mine which was posted first!
            So what is it
            Its got tractor emmitors and a launch pad so obviously its clearly crap

          80. Let me rephrase for the simple minded.
            If you are so sure your weird diagram is too intelligent for me then prove it by explaining what it is.
            But you don't want to as it is a moronic drawing of a fictional pice of crap isn't it?and you're embarrassed that I found it

          81. Don't ask on his site, he is looking for your ISP.

            The diagram is a POS bad writers include in there books because they can't write.

          82. What's wrong, is the mr "I can hide behind my communist chinese ISP's' thanks to my buddies and nobody can track me" is all concerned?

          83. Wow Rodger! Over at SL you just admitted you would like to be Manhandled by Alinsky? or not? You are just a little D!ck tease aren't you?

          84. Roger,from under that bridge you covet; TROLL! You voted for a Mormon Pig Fucker like Mittens. Jesus now hates you, and all of the tea for your denying of him. May you, and your kind burn I n hell! That is only if you think your book of Jewish lies ,fairytale is real ?PS serf voted for a Christian. You not even close! Roger made Jesus cry! You , those like you sold your souls for political gain. My guess is for 30 pieces of silver ?

          85. Hey, I voted for Romney once because there was no way in hell I was going to vote for Obama twice considering his record and the complete lies he's told. Transparent administration my ass.

          86. Yes, and the past has shown any response to you is wasted space here.

            You don't really want to know and the Bible says I'm not to throw pearls to swine.

          87. Yet as we all know, you're just holding a marble bag. You've got no pearls to throw and no evidence to present and nothing worth saying with regard to your religion. Every time you're asked a direct question, you dodge. Every time you're asked to back up your claims, you run away. Then you try to spin things like you're the credible one. You're not.

          88. You keep saying that. And of course it's not true but the fun thing about being a troll is that you can make things up as you go along.

  3. Great article, Looks like Cephus just Rogered/ Roger.To get Rogered from the slang dictionary Roger, or Penis.' as used by a man. Better be careful Cephus Roger will want to cuddle afterwards.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Optionally add an image (JPG only)