Christian ice cream man battered by Muslims who claimed lollies possessed evil spirit

Scroll to see replies

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DoLTcv-RPdM

I urge you to research, Ken Ham, CS Lewis, John Lennox and many others.

The blah blah was a reference to the nonsense that elements of a continuim existed individually and not all at the same time which it's meant to, you obviously didn't actually read what I wrote and just skimmed through it looking for little points to use against me.

Again your poor reading and comprehension comes to place, I said I have an A in Physics and have been studying the works of theoretical Physicists. I urge you to actually read what I write before you embarrass yourself in your replies.

Ken Ham and CS Lewis are not scientists and if these are your idea of what represents scientific knowledge then I shake my head, John Lennox is a mathematician who is mainly a Christian apologist, I have read and watched many of his offerings, I recently called him a fool and that is what I think all these YEC icons are. I am surprised you did not include Behe, at least he is a scientist even if he is just in it for the money.

I never suggested that the 'elements of the continuim' existed separately. If you had watched the Faye Dowker video you would see that space-time is not necessarily a continuum, she is working on a granular theory of time.

As to your A in your physics A-level, I simply refuse to believe that someone who declares the absolutely idiotic Ken Ham as a scientist actually studies science even at A-Level.

By the way it was your poor English that led to me thinking you had a qualification in Theoretical Physicists, now who are these Theoretical Physicists that you read, or was the previous list your idea of what a theoretical physicist is. You must understand that for someone like me who reads up on people like Feynman, Dowker, Einstein etc trying to claim Ham as anything more than a tasty sandwich filler is a joke.

Reply 41

Fantastic Fan

Original post by dozyrosie

I never suggested that the 'elements of the continuim' existed separately. If you had watched the Faye Dowker video you would see that space-time is not necessarily a continuum, she is working on a granular theory of time.

As to your A in your physics A-level, I simply refuse to believe that someone who declares the absolutely idiotic Ken Ham as a scientist actually studies science even at A-Level.

My dear atheist friend once again makes the mistake that I assume that I said that Ken ham is actually a scientist which I never did. And please don't spoil the Dowker video for me as I am trying to watch it in due time :smile:

Original post by dozyrosie

By the way it was your poor English that led to me thinking you had a qualification in Theoretical Physicists, now who are these Theoretical Physicists that you read, or was the previous list your idea of what a theoretical physicist is. You must understand that for someone like me who reads up on people like Feynman, Dowker, Einstein etc trying to claim Ham as anything more than a tasty sandwich filler is a joke.

My English wasn't poor, I carefully articulated that I read up on theoretical Physicists and obtained an A in A level physics.

The works i read are of Einstein, Heinsenberg and Peter Higgs, very intelligent people who I agree that Ken Ham couldn't hold a candle to in regards to their intellectual ability.

Reply 42

dozyrosie

Original post by Fantastic Fan

Your reading comprehension is absolutely horrible. I never claimed that Ken Ham and CS lewis were scientists, I only told you to research them as they are people who defend the christian faith against the skeptics. Lennox on the other hand who wasn't educated as a scientist definietly has superior knowledge about the fundamentals than you as he wrote that during his time at cambridge he would always read about nuclear and theoretical physics.

My dear atheist friend once again makes the mistake that I assume that I said that Ken ham is actually a scientist which I never did. And please don't spoil the Dowker video for me as I am trying to watch it in due time :smile:

I asked for a list of these scientists that you read and you come up with Ham, Lewis and Lennox, it is as plain as the nose on your face. If you really think these people are worthy reading material then it speaks volumes for your scientific interest. When you include Ham it shows you do not take science seriously, this is the prick who thinks the Earth is less than 10 000 years old and dinosaurs and humans were contemporaries. Do I really have to say more?

Reply 43

Fantastic Fan

Original post by dozyrosie

No i didn't say they were scientists, I just said they were people I read up on, and do you realize that the evidence of humans and Dinosaurs being contemporaries is vast?

Have you looked into any of the evidences?

Do you realise that ancient Egyptian and Babylonian cultures all have lots of depictions of art of humans killing, eating and chasing Dinosaurs? Have you read up about the Inca stones in Peru? Or the stories of ST George slaying Dragons, etc?

Reply 44

dozyrosie

Original post by Fantastic Fan

I am sorry I cannot discuss this with a YEC, even an A in A-level physics claimant YEC. I could have banter with a believer in FSM or even a satanist, but talking science with a YEC is pointless. I suggest you cozee up to Racoon, you two could convince each other of your delusions.

Reply 45

Fantastic Fan

Original post by dozyrosie

The only FSM i Know are finite state machines and who is racoon?

Reply 46

champ_mc99

Original post by MrsSheldonCooper

We're not talking about women here babe we're talking about religion.

Alright babe.

Reply 47

bolly_mad

Original post by champ_mc99

Women's rights in India isn't as bad but it ain't brilliant either.

India has only been self-ruling as a nation-state for 69 years. For a quick comparison, the USA has been self-ruling for 240 years. Canada for 149, and the UK came into existence 309 years ago. Development is a marathon, not a race. Pretty much guaranteed that by the time India reaches 149 years, a lot of its social issues would have improved.

And my own personal opinion is that upon reaching the respective ages of the nations above, comparisons will be far more favourable to India in respect to economy, living standards, national power/influence and social issues.

Reply 48

Good bloke

Original post by bolly_mad

And my own personal opinion is that upon reaching the respective ages of the nations above, comparisons will be far more favourable to India in respect to economy, living standards, national power/influence and social issues.

Really? You think that, within your lifetime India will outstrip Canada in terms of living standards and social development, hampered as it is by having a backward economy, little education, no social welfare, a stubbornly superstitious population that kills people in mobs for eating the wrong food and a rigid, racist society with little cohesion or respect for the law? I admire your optimism.

Reply 49

champ_mc99

Original post by bolly_mad

It could improve. Though to maintain their current economy they almost seem rooted to the secondary sector despite producing loads of doctors and engineers (which end up migrating to developed countries). Overpopulation is a big problem too, and unless they have control in reducing this via child policy laws, incentives for less children etc, it would be much harder for the country to grow socially and economically.

Reply 50

champ_mc99

Original post by Good bloke

Well the UK used to kill people for witchcraft y'know. I think they mean as the country progress economically at least, people's attitudes will simultaneously change for the better hence better social standards.

Reply 51

Siberiaan

Possessed lollipop wow , no words. Poor man :frown:

Reply 52

Angry Bird

don't forget India is the most racist country in the world

Reply 53

Good bloke

Original post by champ_mc99

Yes, but a very short timetable was offered. You have to start with universal education to make a start on getting rid of the superstitious nonsense that holds the country back, and you cannot do that without a vibrant economy.

Britain was also once a very superstitious, lawless place. It developed out of that about 300 years ago, on the whole. Unfortunately, India still has killing of people for witchcraft:

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2015/08/women-accused-witchcraft-lynched-india-mob-150808111054841.html

And for being wrongly suspected of tearing a Koran, with the police standing by:

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/27/world/asia/flawed-justice-after-a-mob-killed-an-afghan-woman.html?_r=0

And even for being suspected of eating beef:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/oct/03/inside-bishari-indian-village-where-mob-killed-man-for-eating-beef

And for being black, despite the police again standing by:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2016/02/03/indian-mob-strips-molests-and-beats-tanzanian-student/

This is not a modern, coherent, safe society.

Reply 54

IndianMuslim

Original post by Good bloke

And for being wrongly suspected of tearing a Koran, with the police standing by:

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/27/world/asia/flawed-justice-after-a-mob-killed-an-afghan-woman.html?_r=0

Did you really just post an example from Afghanistan to make your point about India?

I'd be seriously worried about your knowledge of geography! :rofl:

Reply 55

bolly_mad

Original post by Good bloke

Clearly, you're either not very bright or simply can't read properly. 80 years from now India will reach 149 years. Do I think India will outstrip today's Canada 80 years from now? Yes. Because unlike you, who relies on ignorance to make an uninformed argument, I'll actually stick to facts.

Like the fact that today India's $2.2 Trillion economy has already surpassed Canada's $1.5 Trillion economy. Or that India is predicted by most economists to be the third-largest economy by 2050 (at 103 years) with an economy around $40-42 Trillion growing at an average of 6% (conservative estimate). So to compare, Canada builds a $1.5 Trillion economy in 149 years. India builds a $40 Trillion economy in 103 years. And this is using nominal measurements. PPP measurements are even more in India's favour.

Anyone with basic intelligence knows that with an increase in economic wealth comes an increase in living standards and social development - that's what has occurred in every nation that has developed.

And your pathetic descriptions of India only expose how little you actually know. Only simpletons rely on stereotypes. And by the way, neither I (nor Indians in general) need your validation or approval. Just sit back and watch. :smile:

Reply 56

Good bloke

Original post by IndianMuslim

Did you really just post an example from Afghanistan to make your point about India?

I'd be seriously worried about your knowledge of geography! :rofl:

Oops! hehe. It seems I did.

:toofunny:

Reply 57

Good bloke

Original post by bolly_mad

Anyone with basic intelligence knows that with an increase in economic wealth comes an increase in living standards and social development - that's what has occurred in every nation that has developed.

Hmm You prefer to concentrate on total GDP in order to claim that India with a humongous population will outstrip tiny Canada's total wealth, eh?

You haven't considered that having a cohesive population with a higher per capita wealth might be a more valid comparison?

Reply 58

bolly_mad

Original post by champ_mc99

I respectfully disagree. It will improve economically, that's much is a certainty that pretty much ever economist has agreed with. A bad year for India is 6% growth. That says something.

Not every Indian doctor and engineer in India migrates abroad (who do you think designed and built their mars mission?). Also currently, around half of India's economy is based in agriculture so increasing focus on the secondary sector is a good thing to balance things out a bit.

I've heard overpopulation thing a lot, I'm probably in the minority that thinks India's population is a good thing. A few decades from now India will have a potential domestic market of 1.5 billion people. That's a huge opportunity economically as long as the right policies are pursued. And the population is projected to stabilise naturally toward the end of this century. Besides, India is a big country. It can handle it.

Reply 59

bolly_mad

Original post by Good bloke

Oh, what a great reply. Clearly you are worthy of my time and effort. (Sarcasm - I had to point this out, because I know you find it hard to read things properly).

What claim? Is India's economy bigger than Canada's? Yes or no? A few decades from now will India's economy dwarf Canada's (and Australia's and all European nations) yes or no? What claim are you referring to? Canada's total wealth currently stands at $4.7 Trillion, India's at $3.5 Trillion nominal. Given the huge gulf between the two economies in the future, you think India won't have more total wealth than Canada? You seem like the optimist to me.

And you do realise that with a bigger economy comes an increase in per capita income too, right? You also know about PPP per capita income, right? You realise that income alone is not a suitable measurement of living standards, that taxes, expenses, etc, have to be factored in. Infrastructure, healthcare, education, general happiness, mental health? All of which are declining in certain countries, and rising in others.

And what's this about cohesiveness? You clearly know nothing of Indian society beyond the stereotypes and simplistic media articles. India isn't going to tear itself apart. Who are you kidding?