Jantjies saves Lions’ blushes
7 Jul 2012
GARETH DUNCAN watched the Lions nearly blow a 24-0 first-half lead in their 37-32 win over the Rebels in Johannesburg.
The Lions enjoyed their best start to a Super Rugby match this season as they scored two tries within 10 minutes. They built on this early momentum, adding a third try and an Elton Jantjies penalty for a comfortable 24-0 buffer.
The Rebels struck back on the stroke of half-time, which proved to be a start of an impressive comeback. In the second half, lock Hugh Pyle grabbed a brace and flyhalf James Hilgendorf scored a charged-down try to complete an unbelievable turnaround. Fullback Julian Huxley’s third conversion and a following three-pointer secured a 32-27 lead in the final quarter.
However, the Lions’ late drive into the corner via reserve flank Jaco Kriel levelled the scores. Jantjies stepped and slotted the challenging conversion, to edge his team ahead. The flyhalf then sealed a five-point win with a penalty at the death.
The 21-year-old played a match-winning performance with the boot, converting all seven of his goal attempts for a tally of 17 points. He was also key when the Lions’ attack thrived and was solid on defence. This all-round influence was evident in the opening moments of the match as the Lions were rampant from the outset.
Outside centre Waylon Murray crossed the chalk for the first try in the second minute after great interplay among the backs. An inside pass from wing Lionel Mapoe was telling during the move. Soon thereafter, flank Derick Minnie was the beneficiary from composed and patient play, finishing off a 13-phase attack out wide.
Minnie completed a double after a strong driving maul soon after the half-hour mark. Jantjies added all the extras and a penalty as the Lions led 24-7 at the break. Hooker Ged Robinson scored the Rebels’ only points in the first stanza.
The Lions were guilty of a poor defensive effort and struggled to hold on to possession in the second half, which the visitors capitalised on. The hosts slipped tackles as the Rebels’ continuity on attack put Pyle through on two occasions soon after the restart. Hilgendorf’s effort in the 63rd minute put the Melbourne side ahead for the first time in the match.
With the Rebels holding the ascendancy and a slender lead, it looked like the Lions were set for their 13th defeat of the campaign. However, Kriel powered through to hand the home team a lifeline. Jantjies then finished the job with the boot, kicking the winning points.
300 Comments
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 [6] Show All
8 Jul 2012, 22:08 pm
Ok Gods not intelligent.. and neither is Einstein.. as for dumb fck moronic imbeciles like you and the rest of these so called misunderstood non intelligent atheists .. you are so palpably lacking in any reasonable intelligence it shows how pathetically stupid unintelligent you actually are.
8 Jul 2012, 22:09 pm
to worship or to have faith requires belief without evidence, science requires evidence – how many times we gotta go round this bush till your finally catch a fkn wakey wakey. science believes standard particle model is true because it suported by evidence, higgsy predicted it from the equations 40 years back and struse jemima, they now appear to have got the experimental evidence.
ehe.
8 Jul 2012, 22:11 pm
stupid f’ng imbecies wanna use their self solving intellect or non evolved intelligence to convince themselves that they actually got none
if ANYONE was an outright dumbfck delusional idiotic FOOL its these dumb fck non intelligent coagulated lumps of inert matter that parade around telling everybody else that they are MORE intelligent than them.
8 Jul 2012, 22:13 pm
@fitz1ella(fitz1ella)-251: Says the neanderthal who can’t get his brain out of the stone age because he needs “mysticism” to explain the things he cannot fathom. That, my friend, does not spell a huge amount of intelligence.
8 Jul 2012, 22:14 pm
got nothing to do with intelligence, where the evidence for any of the **** you spout, not one iota, just **** – come where the evidence for god, where?
8 Jul 2012, 22:17 pm
where the evidence for intelligent design or creationism or cosmic consciousness or magic carpets or watookal?
every single time they tried to concoct an argument for evolution by intelligent design, its been absolutely destroyed by the overwheling evidence for evolution by natural selection. every time without fail.
8 Jul 2012, 22:19 pm
@cab(cab)-256: Or they start quoting their very own “scriptures” and call it evidence. Or they tell you to look around you for all the evidence you need.
8 Jul 2012, 22:19 pm
wait till one of these new age quantum theorists writes a paper supported by ‘evidence’ that the Standard Model is trumped up blind alley uncertainty and speculation and that the stuff that supports matter is non material… in other words it is conscious energy or not supported by material equation of standard model laws
These high priests of the standard model society will string up this charlatan and crucify him on the standard model totem pole they all bow down to as their religiously inspired god of matter and material science.
they will NEVER acknowledge or own up to the fact that matter CANNOT drive itself.. that there are energetic fields of something other than matter which drives and sustains the universe.
8 Jul 2012, 22:23 pm
@fitz1ella(fitz1ella)-258: Please tell me you take your tinfoil hat off when you go to bed.
8 Jul 2012, 22:25 pm
@>^..^< katman(katman)-257:
janee, i mean sure u got an alternative theory about how it all works fine, but they cant provide any evidence, you just forced to believe it unquestioningly, thats gotta be the lowest form of intelligence going.
@fitz1ella(fitz1ella)-258:
so tell me one scientist who strung up anyone? tell me one scientists who demands obedian and preaches from the pulpit with zero evidence in support of their beliefs? the whole point of science is that they try prove each other wrong.
much of the universe is uknown, science itself says dark energy counts for most of the universe and they dont know what is. the only arrogance are from the ppl who claim to know what its all about and give zero evidence in support thereof, arrogance and ignorance of the highest order.
8 Jul 2012, 22:29 pm
@cab(cab)-260: Ja, this poepol here will have you believe all sorts of hocus pocus with no shred of credible substantiation. And then he has the nerve to call those who don’t join him in la-la land stupid. What kind, ek sê.
8 Jul 2012, 22:36 pm
so whats the problem, you want to think of everything in terms of energy thats also fine, albert said e=mc2, nothing about energy having any intelligence. the universe might well all be interconnected, but that does not mean there is an intelligence behind it. Particles are just a model, it might turn out to be concentrates forces or fields of energy – but that is completely different from an energy that is conscious or intelligent or a designer.
what u think organgtunags were developed by some sort of space cadet in deep space of hoe?
8 Jul 2012, 22:44 pm
Einstein KNEW that either the universe itself is God.. or that some type of deified conscious creative force supports or suspends or sustains the universe..
Einstein KNEW this but these materialist atheists who bow down to Einstein as a god of science reckon they themselves are not using any intelligence to discern between one idiotic thought and another. Its just coagulated haphazard randomly selected particles lumped together which is thinking the thoughts that they think.
8 Jul 2012, 22:48 pm
nope he never KNEW there was a conscious creative force, he held a tenative belief in everything being connected. einstein was a god of science, because he worked in science, not in theology, his theories were scientific, he was educated as a scientists, not in wathatutu.
8 Jul 2012, 22:58 pm
@fitz1ella(fitz1ella)-263: Stop trying to claim the scientists. I’m afraid you’re going to have to make do with the motley crew in your camp, which includes the likes of Ray Mcauley, Tom Cruise and Bakkies Botha.
8 Jul 2012, 23:06 pm
here’s what Einstein the god of science had to say about God
“That deeply emotional conviction of a presence of a superior reasoning power, which is revealed in the incomprehensible universe, forms my idea of God.”
On whether science leads to religion:
“Every one who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of nature–a spirit vastly superior to that of man, and one in the face of which we with our modest powers must feel humble. In this way the pursuit of science leads to a religious feeling of a special sort.”
On how religion motivates scientific inquiry:
“The cosmic religious feeling is the strongest and noblest motive for scientific research.”
On whether science and religion are at odds:
“The situation may be expressed by an image: science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.”
On how he feels about atheist efforts to claim him as an ally:
“There are people who say there is no God, but what makes me really angry is that they quote me for support of such views.”
On how he regards atheists:
“The fanatical atheists…are creatures who cannot here the music of the spheres. I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist. What separates me from most so-called atheists is a feeling of utter humility toward the unattainable secrets of the harmony of the cosmos.”
Yeah Einstein is on my side.. he ain’t on yours… Go suck up to Richard Dawkins dicky bird he’s your favorite arsehole with no real answers to any secrets of this here universe.
8 Jul 2012, 23:09 pm
here’s what Einstein the god of science had to say about God
“That deeply emotional conviction of a presence of a superior reasoning power, which is revealed in the incomprehensible universe, forms my idea of God.”
On whether science leads to religion:
“Every one who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of nature–a spirit vastly superior to that of man, and one in the face of which we with our modest powers must feel humble. In this way the pursuit of science leads to a religious feeling of a special sort.”
On how religion motivates scientific inquiry:
“The cosmic religious feeling is the strongest and noblest motive for scientific research.”
On whether science and religion are at odds:
“The situation may be expressed by an image: science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.”
On how he feels about atheist efforts to claim him as an ally:
“There are people who say there is no God, but what makes me really angry is that they quote me for support of such views.”
On how he regards atheists:
“The fanatical atheists…are creatures who cannot hear the music of the spheres. I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist. What separates me from most so-called atheists is a feeling of utter humility toward the unattainable secrets of the harmony of the cosmos.”
Yeah Einstein is on my side.. he ain’t on yours… Go suck up to Richard Dawkins dicky bird he’s your favorite arsehole with no real answers to any secrets of this here universe.
8 Jul 2012, 23:14 pm
Einstein had a sense of awe of the universe, his ideas built on the shoulders on brains of human intelligence before him including in the mathematics and physics he used to constrcut and arrive at his equations.
He was awestruck at the complexity of nature and how little we know, he liked science cos it was a way of knowing about a small part of this massive mystery. This is the religious feelng he was describing and that many atheistiic and agnostic scientists try convey bt using the metaphor of god.
you said einstein believed in a creative intelligent fource or energy, behind it all where is that?
what you know claiming a scientist as one of your own – get serious, he is heralded for his achievements in science, of which there were many others before him as well as others after him, its a collective enterprise of accumulated knowledge brought about by sustained education and thinking – not by horsemanure.
8 Jul 2012, 23:17 pm
Einstein was also wrong often. only one creating gods here is you.
8 Jul 2012, 23:23 pm
Famous Scientists Who Believed in God
Belief in God
Is belief in the existence of God irrational? These days, many famous scientists are also strong proponents of atheism. However, in the past, and even today, many scientists believe that God exists and is responsible for what we see in nature. This is a small sampling of scientists who contributed to the development of modern science while believing in God. Although many people believe in a “God of the gaps”, these scientists, and still others alive today, believe because of the evidence.
Nicholas Copernicus (1473-1543)
Copernicus was the Polish astronomer who put forward the first mathematically based system of planets going around the sun. He attended various European universities, and became a Canon in the Catholic church in 1497. His new system was actually first presented in the Vatican gardens in 1533 before Pope Clement VII who approved, and urged Copernicus to publish it around this time. Copernicus was never under any threat of religious persecution – and was urged to publish both by Catholic Bishop Guise, Cardinal Schonberg, and the Protestant Professor George Rheticus. Copernicus referred sometimes to God in his works, and did not see his system as in conflict with the Bible.
Sir Francis Bacon (1561-1627)
Bacon was a philosopher who is known for establishing the scientific method of inquiry based on experimentation and inductive reasoning. In De Interpretatione Naturae Prooemium, Bacon established his goals as being the discovery of truth, service to his country, and service to the church. Although his work was based upon experimentation and reasoning, he rejected atheism as being the result of insufficient depth of philosophy, stating, “It is true, that a little philosophy inclineth man’s mind to atheism, but depth in philosophy bringeth men’s minds about to religion; for while the mind of man looketh upon second causes scattered, it may sometimes rest in them, and go no further; but when it beholdeth the chain of them confederate, and linked together, it must needs fly to Providence and Deity.” (Of Atheism)
Johannes Kepler (1571-1630)
Kepler was a brilliant mathematician and astronomer. He did early work on light, and established the laws of planetary motion about the sun. He also came close to reaching the Newtonian concept of universal gravity – well before Newton was born! His introduction of the idea of force in astronomy changed it radically in a modern direction. Kepler was an extremely sincere and pious Lutheran, whose works on astronomy contain writings about how space and the heavenly bodies represent the Trinity. Kepler suffered no persecution for his open avowal of the sun-centered system, and, indeed, was allowed as a Protestant to stay in Catholic Graz as a Professor (1595-1600) when other Protestants had been expelled!
Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)
Galileo is often remembered for his conflict with the Roman Catholic Church. His controversial work on the solar system was published in 1633. It had no proofs of a sun-centered system (Galileo’s telescope discoveries did not indicate a moving earth) and his one “proof” based upon the tides was invalid. It ignored the correct elliptical orbits of planets published twenty five years earlier by Kepler. Since his work finished by putting the Pope’s favorite argument in the mouth of the simpleton in the dialogue, the Pope (an old friend of Galileo’s) was very offended. After the “trial” and being forbidden to teach the sun-centered system, Galileo did his most useful theoretical work, which was on dynamics. Galileo expressly said that the Bible cannot err, and saw his system as an alternate interpretation of the biblical texts.
Rene Descartes (1596-1650)
Descartes was a French mathematician, scientist and philosopher who has been called the father of modern philosophy. His school studies made him dissatisfied with previous philosophy: He had a deep religious faith as a Roman Catholic, which he retained to his dying day, along with a resolute, passionate desire to discover the truth. At the age of 24 he had a dream, and felt the vocational call to seek to bring knowledge together in one system of thought. His system began by asking what could be known if all else were doubted – suggesting the famous “I think therefore I am”. Actually, it is often forgotten that the next step for Descartes was to establish the near certainty of the existence of God – for only if God both exists and would not want us to be deceived by our experiences – can we trust our senses and logical thought processes. God is, therefore, central to his whole philosophy. What he really wanted to see was that his philosophy be adopted as standard Roman Catholic teaching. Rene Descartes and Francis Bacon (1561-1626) are generally regarded as the key figures in the development of scientific methodology. Both had systems in which God was important, and both seem more devout than the average for their era.
Blaise Pascal (1623-1662)
Pascal was a French mathematician, physicist, inventor, writer and theologian. In mathematics, he published a treatise on the subject of projective geometry and established the foundation for probability theory. Pascal invented a mechanical calculator, and established the principles of vacuums and the pressure of air. He was raised a Roman Catholic, but in 1654 had a religious vision of God, which turned the direction of his study from science to theology. Pascal began publishing a theological work, Lettres provinciales, in 1656. His most influential theological work, the Pensées (“Thoughts”), was a defense of Christianity, which was published after his death. The most famous concept from Pensées was Pascal’s Wager. Pascal’s last words were, “May God never abandon me.”
Isaac Newton (1642-1727)
In optics, mechanics, and mathematics, Newton was a figure of undisputed genius and innovation. In all his science (including chemistry) he saw mathematics and numbers as central. What is less well known is that he was devoutly religious and saw numbers as involved in understanding God’s plan for history from the Bible. He did a considerable work on biblical numerology, and, though aspects of his beliefs were not orthodox, he thought theology was very important. In his system of physics, God was essential to the nature and absoluteness of space. In Principia he stated, “The most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being.”
Robert Boyle (1791-1867)
One of the founders and key early members of the Royal Society, Boyle gave his name to “Boyle’s Law” for gases, and also wrote an important work on chemistry. Encyclopedia Britannica says of him: “By his will he endowed a series of Boyle lectures, or sermons, which still continue, ‘for proving the Christian religion against notorious infidels…’ As a devout Protestant, Boyle took a special interest in promoting the Christian religion abroad, giving money to translate and publish the New Testament into Irish and Turkish. In 1690 he developed his theological views in The Christian Virtuoso, which he wrote to show that the study of nature was a central religious duty.” Boyle wrote against atheists in his day (the notion that atheism is a modern invention is a myth), and was clearly much more devoutly Christian than the average in his era.
Michael Faraday (1791-1867)
Michael Faraday was the son of a blacksmith who became one of the greatest scientists of the 19th century. His work on electricity and magnetism not only revolutionized physics, but led to much of our lifestyles today, which depends on them (including computers and telephone lines and, so, web sites). Faraday was a devoutly Christian member of the Sandemanians, which significantly influenced him and strongly affected the way in which he approached and interpreted nature. Originating from Presbyterians, the Sandemanians rejected the idea of state churches, and tried to go back to a New Testament type of Christianity.
Gregor Mendel (1822-1884)
Mendel was the first to lay the mathematical foundations of genetics, in what came to be called “Mendelianism”. He began his research in 1856 (three years before Darwin published his Origin of Species) in the garden of the Monastery in which he was a monk. Mendel was elected Abbot of his Monastery in 1868. His work remained comparatively unknown until the turn of the century, when a new generation of botanists began finding similar results and “rediscovered” him (though their ideas were not identical to his). An interesting point is that the 1860′s was notable for formation of the X-Club, which was dedicated to lessening religious influences and propagating an image of “conflict” between science and religion. One sympathizer was Darwin’s cousin Francis Galton, whose scientific interest was in genetics (a proponent of eugenics – selective breeding among humans to “improve” the stock). He was writing how the “priestly mind” was not conducive to science while, at around the same time, an Austrian monk was making the breakthrough in genetics. The rediscovery of the work of Mendel came too late to affect Galton’s contribution.
William Thomson Kelvin (1824-1907)
Kelvin was foremost among the small group of British scientists who helped to lay the foundations of modern physics. His work covered many areas of physics, and he was said to have more letters after his name than anyone else in the Commonwealth, since he received numerous honorary degrees from European Universities, which recognized the value of his work. He was a very committed Christian, who was certainly more religious than the average for his era. Interestingly, his fellow physicists George Gabriel Stokes (1819-1903) and James Clerk Maxwell (1831-1879) were also men of deep Christian commitment, in an era when many were nominal, apathetic, or anti-Christian. The Encyclopedia Britannica says “Maxwell is regarded by most modern physicists as the scientist of the 19th century who had the greatest influence on 20th century physics; he is ranked with Sir Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein for the fundamental nature of his contributions.” Lord Kelvin was an Old Earth creationist, who estimated the Earth’s age to be somewhere between 20 million and 100 million years, with an upper limit at 500 million years based on cooling rates (a low estimate due to his lack of knowledge about radiogenic heating).
Max Planck (1858-1947)
Planck made many contributions to physics, but is best known for quantum theory, which revolutionized our understanding of the atomic and sub-atomic worlds. In his 1937 lecture “Religion and Naturwissenschaft,” Planck expressed the view that God is everywhere present, and held that “the holiness of the unintelligible Godhead is conveyed by the holiness of symbols.” Atheists, he thought, attach too much importance to what are merely symbols. Planck was a churchwarden from 1920 until his death, and believed in an almighty, all-knowing, beneficent God (though not necessarily a personal one). Both science and religion wage a “tireless battle against skepticism and dogmatism, against unbelief and superstition” with the goal “toward God!”
Albert Einstein (1879-1955)
Einstein is probably the best known and most highly revered scientist of the twentieth century, and is associated with major revolutions in our thinking about time, gravity, and the conversion of matter to energy (E=mc2). Although never coming to belief in a personal God, he recognized the impossibility of a non-created universe. The Encyclopedia Britannica says of him: “Firmly denying atheism, Einstein expressed a belief in “Spinoza’s God who reveals himself in the harmony of what exists.” This actually motivated his interest in science, as he once remarked to a young physicist: “I want to know how God created this world, I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know His thoughts, the rest are details.” Einstein’s famous epithet on the “uncertainty principle” was “God does not play dice” – and to him this was a real statement about a God in whom he believed. A famous saying of his was “Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.”
8 Jul 2012, 23:24 pm
einstein big problem was that quantum mechanics came along and made him go completely nuts, he just couldnt or wouldnt accept it, his was a deterministic worldview that god did not play dice and everything was causal – but then came along bohr and he seemed to show that god did play dice and quantum indeterminacy fkd up einsteins world order.
now it may be that einstein is ultimately proven right that everything has a cause, but there;s a problem with that cause there must be a first cause and so the question is if god is the first cause who created god – so there is a point in the chain whuch reqyures all this caysaluty and determinism to be broken and started off a by an acausal source? comprende?
8 Jul 2012, 23:28 pm
You can believe in whatever you want, but that is completely different from science which requires evidence – if you brought up in a society with religious conditioning, its likely you will tend to believe the same things – atheism or agnosticism is a very recent worldview shared by a very small percentrage of the worlds pipulation – prior to darwin just about everyone believed in god – but then they realised there were alternative explanations for the incimprehensibles and completxities and patterns manidested in reality.
8 Jul 2012, 23:28 pm
I’m far closer to Einstein’s acknowledgement of what this universe holds to be true than you dumb idiotic materialists are..
Einstein’s scientific philosophy on life is FAR closer to my reasoning of how this universe functions to that dead f’ng duck horse manure cr@p that you dumb idiotic materialist atheists and your fucked up self made unintelligent Standard Model micky mouse mathematics garbage you worship…
8 Jul 2012, 23:29 pm
It’s been interesting following this little debate (if that’s what it was) and it’s clear as it always is when this subject is brought up and the two opposing camps weigh in.
The two shall never meet so stop trying to convince each other that your arguments hold more weight.
One cannot prove or disprove, that is the crux of it,
It comes down to belief, or even faith, if you will.
I quote:
“To one who has faith, no explanation is necessary. To one without faith, no explanation is possible.” – Thomas Aquinas
Have a good evening all.
Normal rampant provincialism to resume promptly at 05h00 tomorrow morning.
Pistols at dawn and all that.
8 Jul 2012, 23:34 pm
what you think e=mc2 is if not the ultimate equation?
you got no fkn idea what einstrin said only what you think he’s said in line with your own particular interpretation.
8 Jul 2012, 23:34 pm
Faith means not wanting to know what is true. — Friedrich Nietzsche
8 Jul 2012, 23:40 pm
“It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.” – Albert Einstein
8 Jul 2012, 23:43 pm
one cannot prove or disprove something that does not exist.
8 Jul 2012, 23:45 pm
“What I see in Nature is a magnificent structure that we can comprehend only very imperfectly, and that must fill a thinking person with a feeling of “humility.” This is a genuinely religious feeling that has nothing to do with mysticism.” – Albert Einstein
8 Jul 2012, 23:46 pm
“It seems to me that the idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I cannot take seriously. I also cannot imagine some will or goal outside the human sphere.” – Albert Einstein
8 Jul 2012, 23:48 pm
quite correct katman
einstein did not believe in external inteligence, souls, afterlifes or anything of the sort, he;s religious beliefs have been completely misreprested,.
8 Jul 2012, 23:48 pm
Neitzsche was one fucked up self deluded twat of an individual who didn’t know his arsehole from his elbow.
Did Einstein Believe in God?
Google seems to indicate that Albert did indeed believe in Something.
It is well documented that during his lifetime Atheists and Christians both
lobbied frantically for Einstein’s approval.
“I’m not an atheist and I don’t think I can call myself a pantheist. We are in
the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many
languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It
does not know how. It does not understand the languages in which they
are written. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the
arrangements of the books, but doesn’t know what it is. That, it seems to
me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God.”
“I believe in Spinoza’s God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings.”
“It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly.”
8 Jul 2012, 23:53 pm
@cab(cab)-281: He just found a rather floral way of describing his wonder at the intricate perfection of nature. Trust the god squad to use this to turn him into one of them.
8 Jul 2012, 23:56 pm
@>^..^< katman(katman)-283:
that is exactly right imo, same as when hawkings or others talk about the mind of god, they dont mean god’s design but its a metaphor for the profound discoveries of the universe,
bpttpmline, you can believe what you, you can believe we all in a computer programmed natrix or we were seded by ancient vicilisations or we were created in gods umage – and yet all the evidence opoints to none of the above, it points to evolution by natural selectiom in a haphazard manner without any directing intelligence or mind behind it at all.
9 Jul 2012, 00:00 am
@cab(cab)-284: Or when people listen to a Beethoven concerto and claim that there must be a god for music like this to have happened. They don’t seriously mean that some omnipotent deity wrote the composition through Ludwig’s pen. They simply mean it’s pretty fcken awesome.
9 Jul 2012, 00:04 am
Its because you dumb ignorant fools are incoherent with what ACTUALLY drives this universe that you hold fast and clutch onto your impersonal Standard Model of materialist non intelligent particle of matter reigns supreme illusion…
Einstein was fully aware that there is a force of nature NON material and energetic and orderly which drives and orders this universe…NOT a random collection of unintelligent particles orderlessly randomly creating themselves into form and non intelligent non thinking non feeling beings…
You idiots are absolutely THICK and you expect the rest of creation to be as thick as you are with your dumb debilitated idiocy telling yourself you are NOT an intelligent being.
9 Jul 2012, 00:04 am
Anyway, that’s me. I’m off to bed.
9 Jul 2012, 00:06 am
lolh a crack up. Even after 7 years of reading his deluded rubbish, it still cracks me up with its sheer idiocy. I often wonder if the guy is just having a big laugh himself but we he blows up in rage at least once a day seems to suggest he is very warped. Lol.
9 Jul 2012, 00:07 am
“lol snotsyte is such a crack up”
9 Jul 2012, 00:08 am
yeah yeah its you got seem to have a big problem with the standard model – what you actualkly so worried about? that they might actually be right…
9 Jul 2012, 00:14 am
Now you arseholes wanna deny and decry what Einstein ACTUALLY said regarding his understanding of a universal force or power or deity commonly called ‘God’….
Its because YOU are THICK that you wanna convince yourselves Einstein denied an existence of an energetic ordely and intelligent force of nature
So you twist someone else’s philosophy and understanding to suit your fucked up materialist DELUSION that this creation functions WITHOUT intelligence or orderly structure by a force of nature OTHER than matter….
YOU are the dumb idiots but you wanna convince yourselves you are smart.. when in FACT it is YOU who are DUMB
Your Intelligence which was created by a force of nature OTHER than yourself is non comprehensive of what this VERY Intelligence you deny in YOURSELF is.
You are thinking and writing and conceptualizing about you as being a being of intellectual capacity for reasoning and thought .. yet you DENY the very existence of the INTELLIGENCE you are using to reason with.
WHAT kind of THICK goddamn IDIOT are you..denying the very existence of your own intelligence denotes that you deny the existence of your own SELF
9 Jul 2012, 00:23 am
is the snottieshyte rage volcano brewing for an eruption?
9 Jul 2012, 00:27 am
They are wrong.. they don’t know what drives the universe.. they have just NOW discovered that there’s a particle that is mutable between energy and light which is the catalyst that drives or converts other particles from dormant inertia into activity.
In other words the so called God particle that drives other particles into action..
So energy which is NON material drives nature.. YOU are NOT a material inert object…your thinking is directed by functions NON material or physical..
The force of nature which initiated creation from source is NON material.. light and sound are derivatives of energetic fields OUTSIDE of material substance or matter
Therefore the universe as you see it and observe it is an illusion of impermanent activity come about through mutation of energy between forces OUTSIDE of matter. Matter was created from sub material particles or activity, the space between particles is where they will find the source of material existence which is NOT matter.
Matter is an illusion brought together by non material energetic fields and subtle substance beyond or behind matter is reality.. but you dumb idiotic materialist who bow at your Standard Model alter of ignorance are still FAR away from ever realizing what matter is, how it is formed and how this universe functions and who you yourself actually are in relation to your non realizable existence here..
9 Jul 2012, 00:36 am
@cab(cab)-272: “prior to darwin just about everyone believed in god ”
And those who did not hardly dared to peep about it. Tolerance of a deeply religious mob in old ages was world famous.
Just like cutting finger in shark infested waters.
9 Jul 2012, 03:25 am
the Lions back three are a pleasure to behold – strong, straight running. But for some reason, the Lions insist on holding the ball amongst the forwards too long.
I have also potted teh main reason why teh Lions struggle – their tackling. It is not focussed tackling. if you look at the bulls /Stronters, the first man tackles high and tries to hold teh attacker up. he gets joined by teh second man and they both try to hold teh man up for a maul turnover, or to slow down the speed at which teh ball comes out from that tackle. The aussie son teh other hand, tackle low, and take them an to ground immediately. the second man is teh fetcher or someone good on teh ground, and they attempt to poach the ball off the ground. the point is that the players know what to expect, and give themselves space and time to play that way.
The Lions first player tackles ANYWHERE – sometimes low, sometimes middle, simetimes high. the second player does not know what is going to happen, or how to assist. They cannot get too close, because if the first player tackles low, the attacker smashes the second defender backwards. If the second efender stays too far to give the attacker space to fall into (so that they can poach), the first defender can tackle high without support, and the attacker has too much momentum, drives the first defender backwards, and still does not give the second defender enough space to poach in. The second defender cannot help to assist in keeping teh attacker up, because by the time he gets there, the attacker is on the way down, and will be almost impossible to hold up, and ends up smashing the second defender backwards.
If you want to tackle high, both defenders must arrive together. If you want to tackle low as a team, you need fast, strong poachers in the team, and the timing must be staggered by some distance. Also, if you want to tackle low, ALL defenders speed off the line must be really quick, so that the tackled player does not cross the gainline.
Lions defence is half -half: No speed off the gainline, sometimes low, sometimes high – all over the show. Events cannot be choreographed because there seems to be no defensive strategy.
9 Jul 2012, 20:10 pm
@Nils(Nils)-294:
correct nils.
its the religious whackheads who;ve strung everyone up, not the scientists – they skew everything these fools.
9 Jul 2012, 21:04 pm
@cab(cab)-296: who’s a religious whackhead you moron … you with your high society high priest atheists like that Richard Dawkins piece of over aggrandized high priest trash are the biggest religious whackheads going.. only you dumb moronic fuckheads don’t even know it..
that’s exactly why Einstein distanced himself from the fundamentalist type screwball whackhead atheists who think they so f’ng non intelligently randomly selected clever they are outright ignoramus induced unintelligent fuckheads bar none..
9 Jul 2012, 21:08 pm
the standard model society will never in a month of bloody Sundays ever acknowledge that consciousness or intelligence rules the universe.. as far as they are fundamentally duped to ‘believe” their standard model of outright blind alley corruptible high priest alienation has already ‘confirmed’ that this universe is just one big fat randomly selected non intelligent disenchanted JOKE..!!!
Dumb fck Morons of the Nth degree….
10 Jul 2012, 09:49 am
Dawkins says quite simply where is the evidence?
Where is it u fuckwit tonsil? Not one iota – now this ones going on upon Einstein who never said anything in the slightest about any intelligent mind behind tge universe – u just fabricating your usual **** and know absolutely nothing about Einstein, dawkins, the particle model or science at all. Not in the fkn slightest.
10 Jul 2012, 09:57 am
Forget tge intelligentisa -let’s cut thru all your horseshit – put up or shut up – where is tge evidence?
Let us say for arguement sake that science has got it completely wrong, what difference dies it make to you? The only reason is that you want to hold onto your bullshit woldview in all it’s arrogance and ignorance by stifling others – it’s u religious whackheads who responsible for the stringing up, and it’s u that’s on the witchhunt here. Noone else and yet here you are on about the scientists – u a mindless moron demagogue who talks **** man.
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 [6] Show All
Have your say
You must be logged in to post a comment.