It gets better.
Read the current issue of “Readers Digest” Aug 2003.
Here we have the proof of spirit being told to the general millions of readers of this magazine.
You skeptics are on a roller coaster ride into the spiritual, few years from now it will be so common, people will be asking “how did we ever miss it.”
Love
Leroy
“Read the current issue of “Readers Digest” Aug 2003.”
My favorite scientific journal. Wow - maybe it will be peer-reviewed and published in “People”
A laboratory somewhere in Roswell, NM…
Man in black:"I thought I ordered you guys to seal up and lock down all evidence of Project:Spirit!?!
Scientist:"We did!We managed to completely mischaracterise all ‘believers’ as foolish imbecilles through a series of cleverly placed messgae board posts as well!There could not have been any leaks since we control everything from Scientific American to * Nature*!
Man in black:(holding up the copy of the Aug. 2003 issue of Reader’s Digest)“Then how do you expalin THIS?!?”
Scientist:“Cripes!We must have a mole!”
Scientist#2:“This will not derail our plans.We will simply embark on a PR campaign to portray RD as being a non-scientific source of…”
Man in black:"-Too late!!!We weren’t about to let you dolts screw something else up!We sent Starman out to the SDMB to clean up your mess!He will join the other agents Blowero, Godless, TVAA, and the rest over there adn hopefully we will have no more of these slip-ups in the future or a certain group of scientists will meet with an unfortunate demise as a result of a lab experiment involving gasoline and matches!"
Scientist#2:“Gulp”
Tragically, yes.
It’s horrible, isn’t it?
Like watching a train wreck–you can’t tear your eyes away, & you can’t save the train no matter what you do.
Oh, man - you gotta warn me before you do that. I squirted coffee out my nose.
Sorry about the tons of typos in my posts this morning BTW.I am working on my third cup of coffee myself(and to quote Carl from the film Sling Blade…“It makes me a mite jittery”), I am a hunt-n-pecker typist to begin with and I always type beyond my capabilities(speed wise) because of the many message boards I frequent(try to reply where I think my reply is warranted or where a post is directed at me).
Very funny, the dying gasp of the skeptics.
The sources quoted in the RD article are recognized by the scientific community, love fellows.
GodlessSkeptic is cool. That is all.
Uh huh. Just FYI lekatt, Hooterville isn’t “the scientific community.”
Yeah, I’m gonna nominate him for president at the next Evil Atheist Conspiracy meeting.
The E.A.C. does NOT exist and neither do I for that matter!
And soon neither will Blowero since he has chosen to reveal our existence…er, spread lies about our supposed existence on the SD message boards.I would suggest a quick and convenient case of amnesia before this becomes a Robert Ludlum novel.
BTW, thanks for the compliments which I would certainly appreciate if I had, in fact existed.
I was gonna say something, but now I can’t remember. Strange…
Come on. Somebody falsely said that Snopes proved the event “never happened.” I’m pointing out that this is NOT what Snopes said. As far as I’m concerned, it’s the false attribution to Snopes that is truly pointless and annoying.
The evidence lekatt is speaking about is in from the latest scientific bulletin: http://communitytalk.rd.com/webx?50@@.efe9a79
You poor lost “scientific minded” fools! How could you have missed it with this plethora of evidence circulating!
[quote]
Somebody falsely said that Snopes proved the event “never happened.”
[quote]
Aright. Fare enough, it is not the same thing. It could have happened. But since there’s no way of determining if it did, what’s the big difference? You’re really nitpicking here JThunder…
The difference is that saying “It never happened” is a statement of direct contradiction to someone’s religious beliefs. This may sound nitpicky to you, but if you’re going to condemn someone’s religious beliefs, you had BETTER make sure that your info is accurate.
Look pal, if you’re going to be all nitpicky about exactly what people say, let’s look at YOUR post. I did not say “Snopes proved the event never happened”. What I said was “it didn’t happen; it’s an urban legend”. I was obviously referring to the popular story that someone at NASA discovered a missing day. But you obviously feel the need to invent a strawman position wherein I said it was proven that it never happened. THEN, you have the unmitigated gall to drop your snide little comment about “you BETTER make sure your info is accurate.” Oh, the irony…
And the thing is, your whole argument is a little semantic non-point that nobody cares about.:rolleyes:
blowero, let us examine the posting in question.
Note that the text says nothing about NASA, or the urban legend to which you refer. The claim that it “didn’t happen” immediately follows E-Sabbath’s statement about the sun stopping in the heavens – again, with no reference whatsoever to the NASA anecdote. The logical implication is that the story to which E-Sabbath referred to is what “didn’t happen” – not the unmentioned NASA story.
In other words, my remarks was entirely consistent with your precise phrasing, and that of E-Sabbath.
I was, I should note, alluding to the NASA story, as a well known supernatural event… which can not be proven to have not happened, provided God, having interfered once to cause it, interfered again to put everything back afterwards. (Restarted rotation of the Earth et al.)
It’s not important except as an example. I’m trying to define what a supernatural event would be. An event that is beyond the reaches of the natural world. I figure, as God (according to the Bible) existed before the universe, he is not bound by the natural world, and thus can be used in an arguement to create a supernatural event.
:sigh: That’s real cute how you deliberately cut my very next sentence, which said “That’s an urban legend”, and then claimed I made no reference to the urban legend aspect. I’m starting to understand why your name popped up in the BBQ Pit recently.
Uh, no, they weren’t “entirely consistent”. In fact, you completely made up a position wherein I said it was PROVEN that the event NEVER happened, which isn’t even remotely close to what I said.
You need to stop playing this picky little “here’s exactly what I/you said” game. Not only is it pointless, but you aren’t even very good at it.
But that was exactly my point. The way the urban legend is commonly repeated, a person at NASA discovers a missing day in history through a computer check. SNOPES debunked the urban legend. It doesn’t matter how “well known” it is if it’s not true.
I never said that PROVES it’s impossible. It’s impossible to disprove your scenario, that a supernatural God made the sun stand still and then put everything back the way it was, but that has nothing to do with the NASA story, so there’s really no reason to bring it up at all.
But if God can change the motion of the planets and stars, then that effect can be measured, can it not? If we can’t observe the change in motion, then how would you say it actually occurred? So if the stars and planets suddenly leave their “normal” orbits tomorrow, it becomes part of our universe, does it not?
blowero, my exact words were
I did not say that YOU made no reference to “the urban legend aspect.” Rather, by “the text,” I meant the portion of E-Sabbath’s posting which you quoted. His posting made no reference to the popular NASA urban legend, and so it’s disingenous to dismiss his claim on those grounds.
Again, for emphasis: E-Sabbath’s original statement said nothing about the alleged NASA account. He only refered to the tale of the sun standing still. Your reply unambiguously insinuated that this was merely an urban legend, one that was supposedly debunked by Snopes. In reality, that is not what Snopes claimed.
blowero, get a grip. If E-Sabbath had referenced the NASA story, then you would have been justified in dismissing it as an urban legend and citing the Snopes account. He didn’t though, and so your reply insinuates that the Biblical account was what Snopes debunked – when in fact, it said no such thing.
Again, allow me to cite your exact words:
You said that it didn’t happen, and then cited Snopes as evidence. The phrasing clearly implies that Snopes.com proved the account to be fictitious, no matter how desperately you want to deny it.