Nancy now working foir General Chesty.

[chesty]

You are a filthy BASTARD!

Go to HELL, you SOB!

Tedious

[Cnance]

Tedious

Too bad, you are one of Satan's best. Go where Satan lives. GO TO HELL YOU FILTHY BASTARD.

[chesty]

Too bad, you are one of Satan's best. Go where Satan lives. GO TO HELL YOU FILTHY BASTARD.

Rhetoric

[Cnance]

Rhetoric

Go to hell you SOB!

[chesty]

Go to hell you SOB!

Rhetorical Rhetoric.

[Cnance]

Rhetorical Rhetoric.

The record is clear, God is holy and we are not!

[chesty]

The record is clear, God is holy and we are not!

3 simple questions on the above quote.

1. What record?
2. What does holy mean?
3. What is god?

[Cnance]

3 simple questions on the above quote.

1. What record?
2. What does holy mean?
3. What is god?

There are no words to describe you deceitfulness and lying. I have posted answers, you refuse to read. I think you are an illiterate BASTARD. You are here to cause trouble.

GO TO HELL YOU FILTY BASTARD!

[Cnance]

It is very frustrating to deal with people like chesty who continual ask for proof for God while refusing to present logical arguments to explain everything without God.

I have done this before, but, chesty ignores it. Let's try again! Can chesty live up to the challenge?

1. Explain the beginning of the universe with a scientific explanation?

2. Why do scientific explanations for the origin of natural phenomena lack statistical reliability? To rectify the problem, explain how nature came about using scientific explanations. For answers, laws of probability with a reliability factor of at least .001 must be included with theories.

As a footnote to question #2, scientific explanations for nature have had very low levels of probability. In short, scientists have not validated their theories explaining origins of nature, or the development thereof, with reasonable levels of statistical reliability. In conclusion, scientist have cheated, they claim to have explanations, but those explanations lack statistical reliability.

[chesty]

It is very frustrating to deal with people like chesty who continual ask for proof for God while refusing to present logical arguments to explain everything without God. NOTE: A DEFINITION IS REQUIRED FOR THIS WORD. THIS WORD SIMPLY REPRESENTS AN ASSUMED POINT.

I have done this before, but, chesty ignores it. Let's try again! Can chesty live up to the challenge?

1. Explain the beginning of the universe with a scientific explanation?

2. Why do scientific explanations for the origin of natural phenomena lack statistical reliability? To rectify the problem, explain how nature came about using scientific explanations. For answers, laws of probability with a reliability factor of at least .001 must be included with theories.

As a footnote to question #2, scientific explanations for nature have had very low levels of probability. In short, scientists have not validated their theories explaining origins of nature, or the development thereof, with reasonable levels of statistical reliability. In conclusion, scientist have cheated, they claim to have explanations, but those explanations lack statistical reliability.

Read this you illiterate f ucking retarded piece of monkey shit. No proof asked for "initially".

How about you start with the basic question. "What" is the actual identifiable definition of this thing you refer to as "god". Without a definition, it is simply a word and an assumed point of beginning (assuming a beginning) on which all else rests. Establish the definition of the point of origin, and only then, move forward. Never begin with an assumption. Of course, that question will be answered by referring to me as a satanist by the retard.

YOU CANT ANSWER THAT, CAN YOU, RETARD.

[Cnance]

DESTROY CHESTY THE SNAKE!